The Digital Bits: grain is not a defect on the disc! - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 03:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

I like my movies how I would like to see them. Not someone else's point of view. Just because a director chooses one way to present the material, doesn't mean that it is the best way. Have you ever watched a "directors cut" and think that the theatrical version was better (case in point, Independence Day)

Thats why you can do whatever you want to with your own display, but dont make the studio DNR my movies.
MovieSwede is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 03:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Except that resolution is just one part of the equation. And if the digital camera doesnt have the same latitude as a filmcam, then the end result on a bluray will look different.

But I have seen filmouts of HDCAM footage that have looked so close to S35 that I had to check afterwards that it really were digital from the beginning.

But since the camera they shoot the movie isnt as good as 35mm, they must be more careful when they filmed such as protect the highlights.




Yes its hard to hear the differences, but when you start to tweak it in post you could very well enforce compression artifacts.

But unless you are going to watch it in analog film in your home theater, it will have to be converted to digital anyway. And when you convert, you will lose quality in the transfer, won't you? It is like trying to make your photographs into digital photos. They can look great, but something always ends up "off".

So if we go with your argument (which I disagree with), you have a choice. Would you rather see a better picture in the theater or your home theater knowing that you would have to choose one or the other?

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #183 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 03:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post


Once you taste from the fruit of the tree of no screen grain, never again can you return to the garden of screen grain ignorance.



I think you need to get under that "tree of no screen grain" and out of the sun.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #184 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 04:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

But unless you are going to watch it in analog film in your home theater, it will have to be converted to digital anyway. And when you convert, you will lose quality in the transfer, won't you? It is like trying to make your photographs into digital photos. They can look great, but something always ends up "off".

Not really. Because you can in post control the conversion. Its like when the studios do their 10bit to 8bit conversion. If the do it wrong you suddenly gets banding, and if you do it right its looks almost as good as the source.

But if the cam shoot the movie in 8bits from the beginning you dont have the same rome to play with the material. So even if BD cant go over 8bits, you still have advantage of shooting/scanning with 10 or 12 bits.

Look on a movie like Apocalypto, I can see on the BD that it was shoot on Video and not film. So there is something more to the footage then just resolution thats still gets captured by the BD medium.

But Im not against that digital cams will be used in filmproductions. Just that its not better then film on all apsects of PQ.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #185 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 04:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

Secondly you keep waxing lyrical about 4k and digital, have you any experience of the actual visual difference 4k makes to an image over 2k?

...

Its boring , its facile and usually spewed forth by people whose grasp of these subjects consists of realising 4 is a larger number than 2 .

I think it should give up to 4 times picture resolution, especially on films that have been rendered using CGI at that resolution (especially if it is transferred direct from digital to a Blu-ray disc and viewed on a 4k display device).

Though the visual difference will be less on films that use soft focus lenses or aren't totally in focus, etc.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #186 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 04:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

I think you need to get under that "tree of no screen grain" and out of the sun.

LOL Thats pretty good.

I do think that the transition is inevitable. I may take some time, but the economics favors digital capturing and then viewing.

So here is another question. How do you feel about artifical grain?

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #187 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 04:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by BStecke View Post

Is that the same VC-1 version on the HD DVD, that Michael Bay has stated on numerous occasions does not represent how his film should look?

Transformer on HD DVD is AVC.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #188 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 04:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
BStecke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Transformer on HD DVD is AVC.

Good call. All the rabid Transformers kids on Blu-ray.com got me thinking it was VC-1 with their cries for a new AVC encode. So I guess it's the reverse, Bay preferred the VC-1 encode.
BStecke is offline  
post #189 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 04:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Transformer on HD DVD is AVC.

Transformers looks great on HD DVD. I personally like VC-1 better. Not so much quality reasons, but it is more compact and easier to work with on my HTPC. I think all the formats are just fine though. It usually comes down to how they did the transfer anyway and not so much the codec.... unless it was shot digitally of course

I got my copy the same way the autobots found the allspark..... EBAY! lol

Can't wait to get Iron Man

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #190 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 06:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
ooms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

Apart from the fact that I've yet to see a digital camera that didn't exhibit more noise than the latest film stocks.

Crank was shot completely digital @ 1080p/24. maybe they cleaned it up post? I don't know or care, as it is one of the sharpest and most detailed BD movies I own.
ooms is offline  
post #191 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 09:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrunet View Post

Remove grain and loose image detail. Also, you are probably observing how i.e. the (A/D) digitizing process actually emphasizes film grain in an attempt to achieve transparency.

Detail is neither loose nor tight.

http://loseloose.com/

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #192 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 10:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Lonely Surfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

Detail is neither loose nor tight.

http://loseloose.com/

Good one. I think before anyone is allowed to post on the internet, they need to take a test showing they know the difference between lose and loose.
Lonely Surfer is offline  
post #193 of 338 Old 05-19-2008, 10:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
BStecke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Surfer View Post

Good one. I think before anyone is allowed to post on the internet, they need to take a test showing they know the difference between lose and loose.

That and a myriad of others . . . I thought 'to' and 'too' and 'your' and 'you're' were covered pretty early
BStecke is offline  
post #194 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 02:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

I have to say I'm hearing very bad reports from friends of mine about Red footage in a film currently in production. Jellyvision basically. It now generally seems to be regarded as a bit of a joke throughout the industry.

I think it's very easy to get bad results with the RED if you don't understand the RAW concept and how to expose for RAW. It's not how you expose film and it's not how you expose traditional HD cameras. In addition RED has not provided an easy interface so far to see clearly what's going on on the RAW level before curves and metadata is applied to the monitoring output. Apparently that misleads many into chosing wrong shooting parameters and/or grade versions already screwed up by wrong selection of curves, ISO etc. and then pulling their hair because the apparent latitude is 6 stops instead of 8 or 9 or even more. RED is working frantically on firmware 16 which is supposed to make it much easier to see what you get from the sensor and select your exposure, lighting and filters for best results. I know RED can look fantastic. I have seen it. It can also look like crap if you insist (on purpose or out of lack of experience) on using it that way.
Soderbergh's films are in Cannes. They should give a good indication what you could do a year ago.
mhafner is offline  
post #195 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 02:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

I think it's very easy to get bad results with the RED if you don't understand the RAW concept and how to expose for RAW. It's not how you expose film and it's not how you expose traditional HD cameras. In addition RED has not provided an easy interface so far to see clearly what's going on on the RAW level before curves and metadata is applied to the monitoring output. Apparently that misleads many into chosing wrong shooting parameters and/or grade versions already screwed up by wrong selection of curves, ISO etc. and then pulling their hair because the apparent latitude is 6 stops instead of 8 or 9 or even more. RED is working frantically on firmware 16 which is supposed to make it much easier to see what you get from the sensor and select your exposure, lighting and filters for best results. I know RED can look fantastic. I have seen it. It can also look like crap if you insist (on purpose or out of lack of experience) on using it that way.
Soderbergh's films are in Cannes. They should give a good indication what you could do a year ago.

They are having problems associated with the rolling shutter : not necessary latitude. The people using it are extremely experienced.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #196 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 02:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ooms View Post

Crank was shot completely digital @ 1080p/24. maybe they cleaned it up post? I don't know or care, as it is one of the sharpest and most detailed BD movies I own.

Part of Crank was also shoot on a SD cam.

Digital cams works abit differently then film (in case anyone didnt know )

They have their image sensors they read from then the incamera processing takes on for the readout. So the camera manufacturers tweaks the cam before it goes to tape/hardrive.

So its possible to tweak the cam and get very low noise, but in return you lose on the other pq qualites.

So the manufacturers must make compromisses on what makes the best final image.

But the main camera for Crank is the F950 and its a very good cam. So its not strange it can produce good results. But I havnt seen any screenshoot from Crank that rivals film in any way.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #197 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 02:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

You would think that making something look more real is a bad thing. Doesn't seem to have made football or baseball worse... infact better. Sure these are two different types of entertainment, but are they really that diffferent.

It's telling that you are talking about entertainment and entertainment only. Do you think a football game and any feature film is essentially the same and exchangeable?
mhafner is offline  
post #198 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 02:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

They are having problems associated with the rolling shutter : not necessary latitude. The people using it are extremely experienced.

Then they should use a CCD based cam instead of a CMOS.


Viper and F950 should be better options.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #199 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 03:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Then they should use a CCD based cam instead of a CMOS.


Viper and F950 should be better options.

They are not shooting anything themselves. They are dealing with footage supplied by a client. They will likely tell them to reshoot it, what they shoot it on is the client's business. I suspect they will end up using 35mm ( as it works).

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #200 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 04:48 AM
 
tbrunet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 2,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

Detail is neither loose nor tight.

Oh good one! At least I know the difference between film grain and digital Noise artifacts..which btw is evident in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Digital cams works abit differently then film (in case anyone didnt know)
They have their image sensors they read from then the incamera processing takes on for the readout. So the camera manufacturers tweaks the cam before it goes to tape/hardrive.

Wrong!
The Gamma transfer function and sensitivity is "user defined" variable for even standard ENG cameras and most certainly IS a funamental tool on all state of the art camera designs.
http://media.panavision.com/Referenc.../f23_broch.pdf
S-LOG Gamma (LUT)

Its apparent you don’t understand fundamental digital processing.
tbrunet is offline  
post #201 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 05:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

It's telling that you are talking about entertainment and entertainment only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BStecke View Post

That and a myriad of others . . . I thought 'to' and 'too' and 'your' and 'you're' were covered pretty early

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrunet View Post

Oh good one! At least I know the difference between film grain and digital Noise artifacts..which btw is evident in this thread.

I love when folks look resort to rip others apart by insulting them or degrading them. Shows alot of class. I hope ripping me makes you feel better.

I dont think they are interchangeable..completely. But they are both meant to be entertainment.

I am very much into art as well. Have many prints as I can't afford the real ones. Visit museums. Have taken a multitude of art classes and paint in my spare time.

I consider some films art. Not all. but some. 2001. Dune. The Matrix. A different type of art... a combination between a narrative and a visual with both being equally important.

That aside, I also see them as entertainment. Books can be entertaining as well as artistic. So can traditional art. I prefer Van Gogh. Sure, there is more realism in many other artist, but I have always been fascinated in the raw passion of Van Gogh. That being said. Van Gogh and DaVinci used the same medium for the most part. Sure you can use different types of paint and substrates, but they are both very similar in basic structure.

So while a football game and film are different, they are somewhat comparable. They do show games now in theaters too you know. And many films are made that are intended for TVs as much as they are big screens.

When I read a good book, I get lost in reality and forget that I am just reading a book and imagine that I am in the story. I do the same in a movie. don't you? To many, screen grain is now being seen as a distraction rather than adding to the effect. So, I as well as others prefer the digital without screen grain.

I don't understand why you feel it necessary to bash us. And blindly state that film is better. And digital is so worse. Obviously, screen grain does not bother you, correct? So film may look better to you.

Here is a great example. most will agree that DLP looks better than LCD projection especially when it comes to contrast. But if you see the DLP rainbow, it is virtually unwatchable. So even though DLP may technically be a better option in PQ, it is not for those affected. There are only a small percentage affected by DLP rainbows, but there seems to be a higher number who dislike screen grain. atleast there seems to be more to me from all the posts that I have read.

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #202 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 05:44 AM
 
tbrunet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 2,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

Books can be entertaining as well as artistic. So can traditional art. I prefer Van Gogh. Sure, there is more realism in many other artist, but I have always been fascinated in the raw passion of Van Gogh.

Film technology is a powerful esthetic tool for directors. It has unmatched exposure latitude (aka wide dynamic range) and a seemingly infinite color palette to work with.

Just because those shinny disc we call DVD's apparently have great difficultly compressing the obligatory fundamental characteristics of film (aka grain) is in the end just a limitation of the codec and the digital medium itself.

Debating art and the sublime is pointless!
tbrunet is offline  
post #203 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 05:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrunet View Post

Film technology is a powerful esthetic tool for directors. It has unmatched exposure latitude (aka wide dynamic range) and a seemingly infinite color palette to work with.

Just because those shinny disc we call DVD's apparently have great difficultly compressing the obligatory fundamental characteristics of film (aka grain) is in the end just a limitation of the codec and the digital medium itself.

Debating art and the sublime is pointless!

I am not talking about limitations of DVD here. You can see grain the screen itself. It is not something made up by compression. It is something you can see. Are the spots where you can see grain accurately relating the color infinitely?

You are right about the color palette. But even that can be debated. and the colors are changed and distorted anyway in film during editing. I don't know the number of colors that bluray alone can render but I imagine it is in the millions. From what I have read, even the new laser DLP projectors coming out can only render up to 80% of our viewable spectrum anyway.

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #204 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 06:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrunet View Post

Oh good one! At least I know the difference between film grain and digital Noise artifacts..which btw is evident in this thread.
Wrong!
The Gamma transfer function and sensitivity is "user defined" variable for even standard ENG cameras and most certainly IS a funamental tool on all state of the art camera designs.
http://media.panavision.com/Referenc.../f23_broch.pdf
S-LOG Gamma (LUT)

Its apparent you don't understand fundamental digital processing.


Well since the CCD readout is analog you do have some preprocessing during the AD conversion. Sure some cams give you more control then the other, but not every tweak is adjustable from the camera menu.

There is more to the image then adjusting the gammacurves.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #205 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 06:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
While this is not pulled from an article, this poster had an excellent point about the limitations of film.

Quote:
There may be a lot of argument about what is a typical film. However,
some good films measure out to roughly 100 line pairs per mm. That is
200 pixels per mm, or 5000 pixels per inch. On a 35mm frame, that is
7200 x 4800 pixels. Now, there are MANY other factors that limit
resolution other than just the film, so you are lucky to get half that
value when EVERYTHING is factored in, which brings you to about the
values CSMI gets.

Another thing to take into account in the current reality of fillmaking is that the film itself is scanned into digital form in order to add CGI and edit the film. They no longer cut and splice film in the editing room to make most movies. After the editing, it is then transferred back to film. This will inherently create artifacts even in the smalles scale. So in reality, film is not infinite in the purist sense.

You may argue that scanning is better than raw digital capture. You may be right right, and you may be wrong as there is alot that goes into the transfer and all things ar enot equal. There can even be differences between individual film scanners in the same model let alone different models.

What it all comes down to is the perceived difference. Most people can see a difference between 480 and 720p once you get higher than 27". Most can see a difference between 720p and 1080p. How much of a difference can one see between 1080 and 2000? You can argue that the "big screen" is bigger, but many of us have screens where the viewing angle (which is what is important) is actually greater than what most watch in the theater. Most people seem to sit in the back of the theater.

In my home theater, I have a viewing angle of 40 degrees. When I go to the theater, I sit about midway and estimate a viewing angle of about 32. I imagine many toward the back have a viewing angle in the 20s.

at 40 degrees, I can notice a difference obviously between 480p and 720. I can also between 720 and 1080. I may notice a difference between 2K and 4K, but that is questionable. Would any of us really see a difference between 4K and 6K, 4K and 8K. And that is 40 degrees. At 28 degrees, I doubt there would really be any perceived difference.

And yes, I know there is more than resolution.... but resolution is none the less extremely important, isnt it?

So why introduce screen grain bits or allow it to exist to provide, in theory, a resolution that is not perceivable by most? That is the essence of my argument. To me, HD means that the image is cleaner and crisper. That is what I am looking for. It doesn't make it look plastic like... just more crisp. Just like a new car looks all beautiful and shiny while a 4 year old car can look a little more dull. Sure most cars look a little worn, but it doesn't make a new shiny car look less real.

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #206 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 07:11 AM
 
tbrunet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 2,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

Are the spots where you can see grain accurately relating the color infinitely?

As I stated above, image "detail" is embedded in the grain pattern for each frame and this pattern varies frame to frame.

The presence of noise (random grain) in an image severely degrades compression efficiency. In MPEG, for example, noise degrades interframe compression by adversely impacting the performance of "motion estimation," which achieves interframe compression by cross-referencing matching blocks of pixels in neighboring frames. In motion estimation, noise interferes with the identification of such matching blocks. In addition, noise also affects intraframe compression by reducing the correlation among neighboring pixel values, thereby reducing the compression efficiency achieved by quantizing video data transformed under a discrete cosine transform.
tbrunet is offline  
post #207 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

While this is not pulled from an article, this poster had an excellent point about the limitations of film.



Another thing to take into account in the current reality of fillmaking is that the film itself is scanned into digital form in order to add CGI and edit the film. They no longer cut and splice film in the editing room to make most movies. After the editing, it is then transferred back to film. This will inherently create artifacts even in the smalles scale. So in reality, film is not infinite in the purist sense.

.


10bit log 4k in and out I would say is indistinguishable from the original camera neg in all the areas that matter. Has been since about 1994.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #208 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 07:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrunet View Post

As I stated above, image "detail" is embedded in the grain pattern for each frame and this pattern varies frame to frame.

The presence of noise (random grain) in an image severely degrades compression efficiency. In MPEG, for example, noise degrades interframe compression by adversely impacting the performance of "motion estimation," which achieves interframe compression by cross-referencing matching blocks of pixels in neighboring frames. In motion estimation, noise interferes with the identification of such matching blocks. In addition, noise also affects intraframe compression by reducing the correlation among neighboring pixel values, thereby reducing the compression efficiency achieved by quantizing video data transformed under a discrete cosine transform.

Seeing that these are digitally scanned and this will happen regardless, then why not avoid the film step which introduces this degredation in the first place?

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
post #209 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 07:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmarchini View Post

Seeing that these are digitally scanned and this will happen regardless, then why not avoid the film step which introduces this degredation in the first place?


Okay that's it for me . I 'm not wasting any more time trying to explain these issues to someone who can't even be bothered to make a stab at understanding the fundamentals.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #210 of 338 Old 05-20-2008, 07:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bjmarchini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

10bit log 4k in and out I would say is indistinguishable from the original camera neg in all the areas that matter. Has been since about 1994.

And that is the real debate then isn't it. Is the 4K scanned image distinguishable from the 4K raw image using a digital camera? And if so at what angle?

I understand that you can in theory get a better transfer scanning film... at the moment, but would this difference be perceivable at 25 degrees, 30 degrees, 35 degrees, 40 degrees?

Is this increased better transfer worth introducing noticeable image degradation with the introduction of scanned screen grain if the difference in resolution and clarity is not a perceivable difference from a 25-35 degree angle?

It is a trade off in the end. The question is which poison do you prefer?

I think we could all agree that either method would be indistinguishable when scaled down to 1080p, right? If this is true then the digitally captured image would looked cleaner on our home theater screens, wouldn't it?

HD DVD: 45 SD DVD: 350 BR: 120
PCs: 12, Mame Arcade:1, HD HTPC: 1, WHS Server: 1, HD A3: 2, HD-A30: 1

bjmarchini is offline  
Reply HDTV Software Media Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off