"Despicable" Patton comparison *PIX* - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 05:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperron View Post

Merrick97, no disrespect, but the subject you are bringing up has already been extensively covered over the last 15 pages. Are you seriously trying to start the whole argument over from square one? You can already go back and reread the last 15 pages and get multiple posts answering your questions and concerns. Just because you think it looks adequate does not mean other people do and vice versa. We are already well aware that there are many members that think Patton looks just fine.

Well then this thread should be closed if people aren't willing to hear opinions from the other side. I to think that the example of Patton is over blown and do not see details missing and think the PQ is outstanding.

I find it funny that that adding simulated grain to a picture would make some people think they see added details that aren't actually there int he first place.
If given a choce between the same amount of details in a film with grain and no grain I'll take the one with no grain thank you.
swanlee is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 05:04 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merrick97 View Post

In short my opinion on Patton is this:
People are making something seem much worse than it actually is and I doubt many would care if it wasnt made a big deal about it by Mr. Harris (No disrespect is intended to Mr. Harris). Because Mr. Harris made a big deal about it people are now trying to freeze EVERY frame of the movie and LOOK for DNR instead of actually enjoying what appears to be a VERY impressively restored classic film.

I just felt it was important for me to offer a more mellow view on the subject.

I understand the notion that some detail might be lost when applying DNR, but looking at the pics of Patton on blu. I dont see what detail I would actually "miss"

This is just revisionist history I'm afraid. The uproar over Patton and The Longest Day predates the Harris stuff.


You and so many others are just missing the point or want to miss the point; Patton could have and should have been better.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #453 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 05:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
patrick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

Well then this thread should be closed if people aren't willing to hear opinions from the other side. I to think that the example of Patton is over blown and do not see details missing and think the PQ is outstanding.

I find it funny that that adding simulated grain to a picture would make some people think they see added details that aren't actually there int he first place.
If given a choce between the same amount of details in a film with grain and no grain I'll take the one with no grain thank you.

The clearly visible problem with Patton is that the actors' faces look like plastic. I don't understand how that is something that can be missed.
patrick99 is offline  
post #454 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 06:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick99 View Post

The clearly visible problem with Patton is that the actors' faces look like plastic. I don't understand how that is something that can be missed.

But the thing is people are looking at the photo shopped pics with grain added and talking about how much better they think it looks. There is no MORE actual detail in those pics, simply adding fake grain to a picture does not create detail that wasn't already there. That leads me to believe that people just subconsciously associate grain with more details which is not true.

Grain does not = more details
Grain does not = better picture quality

If given a choice between grain and no grain when there is no loss of details between them I'll choose no grain each and every time.

In motion Patton does not look like people's faces are made of plastic. I watched it this weekend and it look good. I saw facial pores, I saw high res detailed textures and cracks in the walls far in the background.
The details in the BLU-RAY while in motion are there, the grain is not and I'm perfectly fine with that.

I don't have this love affair with grain like alot of you do. To me visible grain is akin to the background hiss on an audio tape. I don't like either and would prefer they are not there if possible.

Yes grain is what makes up film stock but it does not have to be highly visible or distracting.
swanlee is offline  
post #455 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 07:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
surap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
"If given a choice between grain and no grain when there is no loss of details between them I'll choose no grain each and every time."

Film:
No grain = no details. By definition you cant shoot a film wich has no grain

Grain with DNR = All grain is there, but detail is compromised
Grain without DNR = best possible solution. Resolution saved under best possible condition(I dont know if there is a disc that is without DNR?)



It is impossible to choose a film that both has detail but no grain. The grain is more or less visible though, depending of how many grains it has natively. If one could have a billion grain in the cellouid, then I dont think you could see grain with a 1920x1080-media(Blu-ray)

So if you want to see film that is detailed but grain-less, you have to choose High-Def video. Animation(CGI) is often free of grain. Only problem is the noice that can be seen in dark content, wich easely is mistaken for grain.

The only thing I want is the film to be preserved as its best. Wich means free from DNR!

Robert
surap is offline  
post #456 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 07:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Vern Dias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Allen TX USA
Posts: 4,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


and do not see details missing and think the PQ is outstanding.

This is getting really really old.

and think the PQ is outstanding.... Compared to what?????

The DVD?
A 35mm print?
A 70mmm print?

Viewed on:

What projector or display?
On what size screen?
At what resolution?
At what viewing distance?

Do you have 20/20 vision?

Vern
Vern Dias is offline  
post #457 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 07:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gremmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

But the thing is people are looking at the photo shopped pics with grain added and talking about how much better they think it looks. There is no MORE actual detail in those pics, simply adding fake grain to a picture does not create detail that wasn't already there. That leads me to believe that people just subconsciously associate grain with more details which is not true.

The reasons that some people think the "grain added" pics look better is because:

1) the fine grain structure breaks up the smooth, waxy expanses of dead looking flesh, making the excessive DNR less blatant

2) As was recently posted by another forum member, when a grain structure is sharp and in focus, it creates the visual perception that the entire film element is sharp and in focus. This isn't about bias; it's about human visual perception.

Quote:


Grain does not = more details
Grain does not = better picture quality

But I think the point of posting the grain-added pics was to demonstrate that grain does not "ruin" the presentation, thereby making the point that it's a waste of time and energy for the production houses to remove the grain and at the same time REMOVE THE FINE DETAIL from the image.



Quote:


I don't have this love affair with grain like alot of you do. To me visible grain is akin to the background hiss on an audio tape. I don't like either and would prefer they are not there if possible.

This tendency to grossly oversimplify the argument, as you have done here, is what leads to page after page of useless argument. No one here is saying, "Hey, I have a love affair with grain." That's not what this is about.
gremmy is offline  
post #458 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 07:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by surap View Post

"If given a choice between grain and no grain when there is no loss of details between them I'll choose no grain each and every time."

Film:
No grain = no details. By definition you cant shoot a film wich has no grain

Grain with DNR = All grain is there, but detail is compromised
Grain without DNR = best possible solution. Resolution saved under best possible condition(I dont know if there is a film that without DNR)



It is impossible to choose a film that both has detail but no grain. The grain is more or less visible though, depending of how many grains it has natively. If one could have a billion grain in the cellouid, then I dont think you could see grain with a 1920x1080-media(Blu-ray)

So if you want to see film that is detailed but grain-less, you have to choose High-Def video. Animation(CGI) is often free of grain. Only problem is the noice that can be seen in dark content, wich easely is mistaken for grain.

The only thing I want is the film to be preserved as its best. Wich means free from DNR!

Robert

I have seen many films with high details that did not have high levels of grain.
This years remastered Blade Runner was highly detailed but did not have a highly visible layer of grain that was distracting or even really noticeable like some here want with Patton.

I know grain is apart of the film but it does not have to be overly visible to still retain details.You don't have to have this highly visible layer of grain going on for details to be present.
swanlee is offline  
post #459 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
patrick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

I have seen many films with high details that did not have high levels of grain.
This years remastered Blade Runner was highly detailed but did not have a highly visible layer of grain that was distracting or even really noticeable like some here want with Patton.

I know grain is apart of the film but it does not have to be overly visible to still retain details.You don't have to have this highly visible layer of grain going on for details to be present.

Once again, the obvious problem with Patton is that the actors' faces look like plastic. Do you not see that?
patrick99 is offline  
post #460 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 07:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
surap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

I have seen many films with high details that did not have high levels of grain.
This years remastered Blade Runner was highly detailed but did not have a highly visible layer of grain that was distracting or even really noticeable like some here want with Patton.

I know grain is apart of the film but it does not have to be overly visible to still retain details.You don't have to have this highly visible layer of grain going on for details to be present.

Yes i know there is film with "finer" grain. Blade Runner looked stunning, I agree.

What i am worried about is that people sometimes want to remove the grain because they think it is something wrong with the picture.

All sizes of grain is welcome as long they are preserved. Just so no one is mistaken of what I wrote.
surap is offline  
post #461 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 07:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

I have seen many films with high details that did not have high levels of grain.
.

Yes, there can be high levels of detail with and without grain (depending on how it was shot). But Patton on BD has neither. Neither does it look like low grain highly detailed 65mm (which it is) nor one of these noisefree new digital cameras with lots of detail as well. That is the problem. It neither provides an authentic look of the original film with little grain nor a processed look with even less grain and the detail intact. It's superclean and smooth and free of fine detail. And looks like a 720p video game instead of 1080p film.
mhafner is offline  
post #462 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 07:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflegert View Post

Could you give post number(s), all I seem to see are BD image captures (and processed images)?

Thanks,
John

Just read these few pages and you will see what it's about.
mhafner is offline  
post #463 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 07:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick99 View Post

Once again, the obvious problem with Patton is that the actors' faces look like plastic. Do you not see that?

In motion no they don't look like plastic, they have details.
swanlee is offline  
post #464 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 07:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sharkshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, eh?
Posts: 2,424
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

\\It surprises me that you would be able to focus the image, using grain, from the projector booth on a 70mm print (without binoculars).

To bring this full circle, when I visited the projection booth of the York when it screened it's last ever film (LoA, on 70mm, natch) I asked how they focus such a large frame, and he showed me the decent pair of binocs that he used to ensure that the grain, as fine as it was, was crystal clear...

Didn't someone on this very thread do the LoA restoration?

sharkshark is offline  
post #465 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 08:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:


In motion no they don't look like plastic, they have details.

Robert Harris and others have made it clear that detail is missing in motion that should be there that the format is capable of showing.
RobertR is offline  
post #466 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 08:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkshark View Post

To bring this full circle, when I visited the projection boot of the York when it screened it's last ever film (LoA, on 70mm, natch) I asked how they focus such a large frame, and he showed me the decent pair of binocs that he used to ensure that the grain, as fine as it was, was crystal clear...

Didn't someone on this very thread do the LoA restoration?

Yes, it would seem to me that you would have to use binoculars to see the grain to be able to focus the projector on a 70mm print.

As to this dude in this thread who did the LoA restoration, can you give me a hint?

Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #467 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 08:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:


As to this dude in this thread who did the LoA restoration, can you give me a hint?

Look at my name.
RobertR is offline  
post #468 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 08:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sharkshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, eh?
Posts: 2,424
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

As the risk of repeating myself upon repeating myself...

"This is not about grain!"

It's also not about high frequency noise, it's about whether or not these considerations trump others (such as the desire to have the film look pristine and free of all blemish, and thus worthy of the upgrade for the casual viewer from the DVD). In this case, they have - this is not to say there aren't significant elements of this transfer that easily surpass the DVD edition of a few years back. Let me be the first in this thread to wholeheartedly commend Fox for including all the excellent extras from the DVD, something that they've been remiss to do in many of their releases. In other words, there's lots to like about this release, clearly (mine's still on order, alas), but the movement in the direction of excessive filtering of high-frequency detail is one that -should- be challenged by the likes of RAH, Xylon, AVS, etc. It shouldn't, perhaps, require the hyperbole evident in this thread that loses sight of the positives of this release, but if it takes hyperbole to make the point that a change in focus (ha!) is required then so be it...

RAH, not to drag this off topic, any thoughts on the necessity for the inclusion of original (say, mono/stereo) soundtracks for these classic films? It has been suggested that you're more ambivalent on the topic of audio then video, just curious if you could point to any specific comments you may have made regarding the restoration/preservation of original soundtracks. Certainly the thought of excessive compression/high frequency -boosting- in old soundtracks is more prevalent then the scrubbing done to Patton's video master...

Secondly, is it possible that this DNR/HFR was done at the telecine stage? In other words, is it's strictly a "post" process, or could it be in the working pipeline right from the capture of the frames? If there's a need to do a new master, the odds of us getting a replacement release are slim to say the least...

sharkshark is offline  
post #469 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 08:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Look at my name.

I was joking.

Believe me, I am very familiar with Mr. Harris' restoration work on the greatest movie ever made!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkshark View Post

Ah, "like looking through beer goggles..." Far better description than "waxy faced, manequin like appearance..."

Oh, and I can't believe nobody's said it... aren't the problems "Pattonly" obvious?


(*vomit*)

Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #470 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 08:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Don Borvio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Allow me to remind all reading this thread that my comments have little to do with grain, reduced or not.

Quality grain reduction can be accomplished, if desired, without any loss of detail, ie. high frequency information.

The problem with Patton is not the loss of grain, which...

A. Would have been extremely fine in nature to begin with, and
B. Did not need to be removed...

The problem is that a huge amount of detail has been removed in an improper and unsuccessful attempt to remove grain.

Those viewing the film on Blu-ray on a large screen are only able to see about 75% of the potential information.

Consider this as precisely the same as cropping of an image from 2.35 to 1.85, with the resultant loss of information.

This affects all elements of the film, from cinematography to acting, and makes what was an incredibly important production of the highest quality take on the characteristics of a video game.

Considering the alternatives, one of which would have been a grain reduced image with no loss of information, this is not a good thing.

RAH

Now, this is a MUCH more valid argument, imo. 70mm doesn't have a lot of visible grain, as explained by a few professionals here. If they applied DNR to a picture that needed NO DNR, thereby removing data which would've made the picture even better - I totally argee. I also think it still looks better than any consumer media version out there. But, if this was done, Fox should really do a new gold disc w/o DNR and let us does a swap a la POTC1 if we want. Fox charges a premium for BDs over other studios anyway, we should be the best PQ/SQ we can since they don't give us anything else.
Don Borvio is offline  
post #471 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 09:24 AM
Member
 
sheldonison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A lot of folks here are complaining about DNR and presumed EE removing grain. Others have pointed out that grain gives the illusion of sharpness.

Question: how much high frequency filtering is applied in making a blu-ray disc, just to avoid digital artifacts like the "screen door" effect, or digital moire? Are we mistaking DNR for this high frequency filtering? I would think the "kvell" factor for blu-ray might be around 0.7x. Maybe that's the DNR we're seeing.

One proposal would be oversampling. If the source is oversampled (3K or 4K scan instead of 2k scan), how much closer to 1.0x can we get the Kvell factor before running into seriously objectionable digital artifacts? Maybe 0.85? 0.90?

I don't think I've seen "screen door" effect on blu-ray, but it is occasionally seen in a DLP theatrical projection. Does DLP do any high frequency filtering?
sheldonison is offline  
post #472 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 09:44 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
The more I read the more saddened I am. Patton and ,to a greater extent, The Longest Day were butchered. Despite that there are a large number here who think that the extras , sound track or the fact that the images look really "pristine" somehow compensates for what has happened.

We really are at a crossroad with BD and catalog.I've seen hundreds of DVDs of older films that look better than TLD regarding image detail. This is a tragic waste of opportunity.

By the way I may be old but I'm no geezer and the classic "you need to get out more" put down has no place in a forum devoted to just such details and decussions as most of us have been engaged in.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #473 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Robert Harris and others have made it clear that detail is missing in motion that should be there that the format is capable of showing.

And I watched this same Blu-ray disc on my 1080P HDTV, I saw no plastic faces in motion I saw scars and pores in people's faces I saw details in textures on wall. I think people are blowing this entire thing way way out of proportion when it come to Patton.

Now an example of me not seeing details is 40 Year old virgin on HD-DVD. That disc looked like an upsampled DVD.

Patton however has all the detail I'm accustom to when viewing a full 1080P HD presentation.
swanlee is offline  
post #474 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 10:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JBlacklow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: A state of uncertainty
Posts: 4,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm going to guess that this will not end well:
Quote:


More important for me at the Fox demo was the opportunity to discuss the Internet buzz concerning the allegations that Fox applied excessive digital noise reduction (DNR) when it prepared Patton for release on Blu-ray Disc. I asked Senior Vice President of Corporate & Marketing Communications Steve Feldstein about this controversy that’s making the rounds of the forums. He immediately text-messaged the people responsible for the transfer and within minutes he was called. I’m told that the transfer was derived from highly revealing, low grain 70 mm source elements and that no grain removal was applied.

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...k=view&id=6776

I'm donning the flamesuit...now!

"When I get sad I just stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story."
--Barney Stinson, How I Met Your Mother

Best. Surge Protector. Ever.
JBlacklow is online now  
post #475 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 10:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jgatie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlacklow View Post

I'm going to guess that this will not end well:
http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...k=view&id=6776

I'm donning the flamesuit...now!

DNR is not necessarily "grain removal." They'll be parsing their explanations very well, so be prepared for the semantics war.
Jgatie is offline  
post #476 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 10:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Vern Dias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Allen TX USA
Posts: 4,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Swanlee,

I just looked at your setup ( http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphoto.php/photo/25617 ) and it's now clear to me that based on the size of your screen (40") and the seating distance from the screen that you NEVER will see the level of detail we are talking about in this thread. Based on your screen size of 40" and your viewing distance of what I estimate to be around 10' you cannot perceive any better resolution than 480P with your current setup. Reference this: http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09...o-screen-size/ for more information. If you want to accurately evaluate HD image quality , then you need to be seated no more than 5' away from your current display. Here's another reference to this: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hit...esolution.html

When you get your HT set up so that your viewing distance vs image size matches the red line on the chart, then and only then will you be able to understand and accurately evaluate what is being discussed in this thread.

Compare your viewing angle to http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/Curtain.jpg which is the view from my front row of seats. That is a 17' wide room with a 15' wide screen viewed from a 14' seating distance. BTW, Art and others here have comparable HT setups as well.

And don't feel bad, because RAH made the same errors that you are making before he realized that image size and viewing distance have to comply with the data in this chart to really evaluate HD image quality.

Vern
Vern Dias is offline  
post #477 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 10:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Matt_Stevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
FOX is going to lie through their teeth about this, just as they did with PHANTOM MENACE and Edge Enhancement. They lie about that to this day.

Vimeo is the home of the Super8 Shooter...
http://vimeo.com/super8shooter
Matt_Stevens is offline  
post #478 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 10:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:


Quote:
More important for me at the Fox demo was the opportunity to discuss the Internet buzz concerning the allegations that Fox applied excessive digital noise reduction (DNR) when it prepared Patton for release on Blu-ray Disc. I asked Senior Vice President of Corporate & Marketing Communications Steve Feldstein about this controversy that’s making the rounds of the forums. He immediately text-messaged the people responsible for the transfer and within minutes he was called. I’m told that the transfer was derived from highly revealing, low grain 70 mm source elements and that no grain removal was applied.

Sorry, but I do not believe this claim at ALL. I've seen Patton in 70 mm at the Samuel Goldwyn theater in Los Angeles (the theater of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, meaning the quality is as good as it gets), and fine film grain WAS present, with ENORMOUS detail (better than ANY HD video image). The image Did NOT look like the screen caps that have been shown of Patton. This claim is almost completely destroying Fox's credibility on this issue as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.oscars.org/facilities/theaterops/sgt.html
RobertR is offline  
post #479 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 11:01 AM
 
FoxyMulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

FOX is going to lie through their teeth about this, just as they did with PHANTOM MENACE and Edge Enhancement. They lie about that to this day.

I was going to be nice and say they will be economical with the truth so they don't have to redo the transfer, spend more money and bring in a recall program but you said exactly what i was thinking.
FoxyMulder is offline  
post #480 of 930 Old 06-25-2008, 11:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
robertc88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 3,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yep. Still waiting on a valid response from insiders why this was released this way.

PS. Assumptions need not apply!
robertc88 is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

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