Originally Posted by bplewis24
That may be true, but it's still unfortunate that Universal didn't allow the movie to look the best it has in HD throughout the entire movie, as they apparently did apply more DNR in some spots.
I'm sorry Brandon, but I don't think it’s apparent that they did apply more DNR. It's apparent that the DNR is more visible
, but that is not undisputable evidence that proves more DNR has been applied.
When I look at the HD DVD grabs I see noise. Did you see what Amir did with the Patton pic? The sharpening and added noise gave the illusion of more detail and texture in Karl Malden's face. In effect that is what I believe is happening here.
That noise is absent from the BD encode so the DNR is more pronounced. While it’s possible that more DNR may have been applied it just doesn’t seem logical.
Why would Uni spend extra $$ to apply more DNR? They could’ve just ported the HD DVD encode over to BD. Or went back and applied more DNR to the HD DVD encode which would have saved money compared to creating a new encode with more DNR. Look at Uni’s track record with their HD DVD titles. Most of the bad encodes that I’m aware of were attributed to bad masters. If Uni were proponents of DNR then they would’ve used it across the board much like New Line.
Their catalog titles like The Thing
look exceptional. KK is arguably a reference title and my favorite looking HDM title is still Children of Men
. With a proper display it has more “looking through a window” moments than any other title that I’ve seen.
So people can believe whatever they want.
Both arguments are plausible. I choose to believe that Uni did not add more DNR, and instead gave us an encode with less noise that has made the DNR more pronounced. Now which encode is more preferable is up to the viewer.
BTW have you watched it on BD?