The Good, The Bad and the Ugly comparison *PIX* - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 10:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Pecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta Tester View Post

I am debating whether to buy this one. It is one of those borderline movies, so whether I buy is not a big deal. I had seen this on HDNet about 2 years ago, and it looked awful. Then they broadcasted another version about 6 months ago, and it looked significantly better. Someone had also mentioned that they saw a restored print in an arthouse and it looked fantastic. I am wondering where this Blu-Ray sits relative to these 3 versions?

That's a choice only you can make. Some think it's good enough to buy, others not.

The best thing I can do is to point you at these screencaps here:

This is the old DVD:



Notice any EE? Can you make out his face clearly? Now try the BD:



Only you can decide what you can see.

Here's a rail from the same cap. SD first, BD second. Any edge enhancement on SD? What about the BD:





Here's a hat. SD first, BD second. Any more detail in the BD:





You may or may not see differences. They may or may not be enough for you to warrant buying the BD.

It's up to you.

Steve W
Pecker is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 10:55 AM
Member
 
Ickibod's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Pecker, I can see what you're arguing, but you're completely missing the point. We all know that the Blu Ray looks better than the DVD. The DVD itself was a flawed release that featured a ton of Edge Enhancement and was a three-hour, grain-heavy movie stuck on a DVD-9. Obviously it's not going to look great.

Nobody here is trying to tell you the Blu-Ray isn't a step up. Of course it is. That's the easy part. What these people are lamenting is the fact that the release of this great film could have been astronomically better if they had just done a proper remastering job and not simply used an old master and processed it.
Ickibod is offline  
post #93 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 11:10 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dex Robinson View Post

I'm a big believer in the Robert Browning quote that, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp".

Or, for the more contemporary crowd, the U. S. Air Force slogan "Aim High".

I believe in setting lofty goals and high standards. These are good things. When we don't achieve those highest of goals, I appreciate when people point out what needs to be improved.

By the same token, every failure to reach our goals or meet our standards does not constitute abject failure. There is not a line of perfection below which a transfer becomes "crap" or "almost unwatchable". If perfection or near perfection becomes our bar for every transfer, we'd get one Blu-ray release every two months. There are multiple factors, some objective but many subjective, involved in the process of bringing discs to market.

Of course I'd like the best possible transfer under every circumstance. But I also have an appetite for movies and I'm not young enough to wait it out for every transfer to be done to my standard of perfection. Sometimes an "OK" transfer has to do. Once in awhile, "Better than the DVD" is the best we are likely to get. And when things fall short, we SHOULD point it out here. It's ok to call for improvement. I just think we can go a bit overboard in criticism. There is a continously changing shade of grey involved in quality judgements and not just a border between white and black.

THIS.

A thousand times THIS.

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


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
JBlacklow is offline  
post #94 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 11:18 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
Can someone explain the use of DNR. Is it impossible to transfer a film to disc without DNR? Is it to heavy for the computer to transfer a film without the use of DNR?

Is it cheaper to NOT use DNR?! Or is it inevitable to use DNR because it must fit the disc somehow?

If I had a film(1920x1080) that was 30 minutes long, would it fit on to a BR-disc without DNR?

Sorry for all the Q:s, but I want to know the technical aspects about the format..
surap is offline  
post #95 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dex Robinson View Post

I'm a big believer in the Robert Browning quote that, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp".

Or, for the more contemporary crowd, the U. S. Air Force slogan "Aim High".

I believe in setting lofty goals and high standards. These are good things. When we don't achieve those highest of goals, I appreciate when people point out what needs to be improved.

By the same token, every failure to reach our goals or meet our standards does not constitute abject failure. There is not a line of perfection below which a transfer becomes "crap" or "almost unwatchable". If perfection or near perfection becomes our bar for every transfer, we'd get one Blu-ray release every two months. There are multiple factors, some objective but many subjective, involved in the process of bringing discs to market.

Of course I'd like the best possible transfer under every circumstance. But I also have an appetite for movies and I'm not young enough to wait it out for every transfer to be done to my standard of perfection. Sometimes an "OK" transfer has to do. Once in awhile, "Better than the DVD" is the best we are likely to get. And when things fall short, we SHOULD point it out here. It's ok to call for improvement. I just think we can go a bit overboard in criticism. There is a continously changing shade of grey involved in quality judgements and not just a border between white and black.

My nominee for post of the year so far

Your words summed up exactly how I feel about the DNR/EE debates. And to add to it everyone has their own perception of what "perfect is". Perfect for one person may be leaving grain intact. Perfect for another may be removing the grain and adding DNR. I am in the "leave the grain intact" crowd, but I am not going to impose my will on others that feel differently. We simply have different opinions. And ultimately I try not to judge a movie solely based on screen captures and the opinions of others. At the least, if it is a movie I really want to watch, I will rent it. In some cases, I will still buy it. The movie always comes first for me, but PQ/AQ is a big factor too.
ack_bk is offline  
post #96 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 11:27 AM
Member
 
Ickibod's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by surap View Post

Can someone explain the use of DNR. Is it impossible to transfer a film to disc without DNR? Is it to heavy for the computer to transfer a film without the use of DNR?

Is it cheaper to NOT use DNR?! Or is it inevitable to use DNR because it must fit the disc somehow?

If I had a film(1920x1080) that was 30 minutes long, would it fit on to a BR-disc without DNR?

Sorry for all the Q:s, but I want to know the technical aspects about the format..

The reason studios use DNR is because it pleases the public. The average consumer doesn't want film grain in their releases because it doesn't look 'smooth' or 'HD-like'. They want a clean, spotless transfer that looks like it was struck yesterday.

DNR is a cheap and easy way to simulate that. Sure, you could spend months painstaking over a full remaster job, but why not just slap DNR on it, removing a ton of detail in the process, and call it a day? Studios choose the latter, mostly.
Ickibod is offline  
post #97 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 11:29 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 surap View Post

Can someone explain the use of DNR. Is it impossible to transfer a film to disc without DNR? Is it to heavy for the computer to transfer a film without the use of DNR?

You dont need to DNR a movie, its a bit tricky to encode a movie with grain, since grain is random and makes it harder for the encoder to save bits. But with modern codecs and skilled compressionist, its no problem encode a movie with grain. But remember the encoding is just trying to recreate the grain pattern with blocks. Its not a lossless process.

The other reson to use DNR, is to make the movie look cleaner for estethic reasons, or to use it on old masters to make them look newer.

There is also DNR in restoration, were the filmstock has become to grainy compared to how it should look.

Quote:


Is it cheaper to NOT use DNR?! Or is it inevitable to use DNR because it must fit the disc somehow?

It cheaper to use DNR on an old master, then it is to create a new state of the art master. And of course you should save some encoding time on an DNRed transfer.

Quote:


If I had a film(1920x1080) that was 30 minutes long, would it fit on to a BR-disc without DNR?

Yes. And the same goes with a 2 hour movie (or longer)
MovieSwede is offline  
post #98 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 11:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by surap View Post

Can someone explain the use of DNR. Is it impossible to transfer a film to disc without DNR? Is it to heavy for the computer to transfer a film without the use of DNR?

Is it cheaper to NOT use DNR?! Or is it inevitable to use DNR because it must fit the disc somehow?

If I had a film(1920x1080) that was 30 minutes long, would it fit on to a BR-disc without DNR?

Sorry for all the Q:s, but I want to know the technical aspects about the format..

You can fit any movie on a blu-ray disc, lossy video encoders can produce whatever file size you want, at the expense of quality. Random noise has little redundant information so it does not compress well, so reducing grain can result in less compression artifacts at low bitrates, but it's really not a problem considering the amount of space a dual layer BD offers. I've seen very grainy films reproduced perfectly, so I imagine most of the time it's done because the video mastering guys think that people dislike seeing grain, or the transfer was done before the advent of blu-ray (when video codecs were much more primitive, too) and videophiles bitching about everything.
Looks like movieswede beat me to it.
42041 is offline  
post #99 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pecker View Post

That's a choice only you can make. Some think it's good enough to buy, others not.

The best thing I can do is to point you at these screencaps here:

This is the old DVD:



Notice any EE? Can you make out his face clearly? Now try the BD:



Only you can decide what you can see.

The BD looks like an animated film.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #100 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 12:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,449
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dex Robinson View Post

I'm a big believer in the Robert Browning quote that, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp".

Or, for the more contemporary crowd, the U. S. Air Force slogan "Aim High".

I believe in setting lofty goals and high standards. These are good things. When we don't achieve those highest of goals, I appreciate when people point out what needs to be improved.

By the same token, every failure to reach our goals or meet our standards does not constitute abject failure. There is not a line of perfection below which a transfer becomes "crap" or "almost unwatchable". If perfection or near perfection becomes our bar for every transfer, we'd get one Blu-ray release every two months. There are multiple factors, some objective but many subjective, involved in the process of bringing discs to market.

Of course I'd like the best possible transfer under every circumstance. But I also have an appetite for movies and I'm not young enough to wait it out for every transfer to be done to my standard of perfection. Sometimes an "OK" transfer has to do. Once in awhile, "Better than the DVD" is the best we are likely to get. And when things fall short, we SHOULD point it out here. It's ok to call for improvement. I just think we can go a bit overboard in criticism. There is a continously changing shade of grey involved in quality judgements and not just a border between white and black.

Bingo, baby. I was gonna waffle on, but I can't say it any better than that.
Geoff D is online now  
post #101 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 12:14 PM
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 MovieSwede View Post

You dont need to DNR a movie, its a bit tricky to encode a movie with grain, since grain is random and makes it harder for the encoder to save bits. But with modern codecs and skilled compressionist, its no problem encode a movie with grain. But remember the encoding is just trying to recreate the grain pattern with blocks. Its not a lossless process.

The other reson to use DNR, is to make the movie look cleaner for estethic reasons, or to use it on old masters to make them look newer.

There is also DNR in restoration, were the filmstock has become to grainy compared to how it should look.



It cheaper to use DNR on an old master, then it is to create a new state of the art master. And of course you should save some encoding time on an DNRed transfer.



Yes. And the same goes with a 2 hour movie (or longer)

Thanks for the answers, MovieSwede.
I guess some Studios use the "auto-DNR"-button and then put their feet on the table and take a nap. I think the should put more effort on transfering the film instead.

After your excellent explanation I see no reason whatever to use DNR. It should be treated like the pandemic non-anamorphic disease that hit us not long time ago(if you are old enough to remember..)
surap is offline  
post #102 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 12:17 PM
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 Kram Sacul View Post

The BD looks like an animated film.

Yes, certainly. And too "contrasty" to. Seems to be the new trend..
surap is offline  
post #103 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 12:29 PM
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 surap View Post

After your excellent explanation I see no reason whatever to use DNR.

There are only financial reasons to use bad quality DNR. Good quality DNR costs more.
mhafner is offline  
post #104 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 12:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
kdssrugby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
While I don't condone DNR, I picked this up anyways since I've never seen it before and it's only a few $ more than the dvd, that and the fact that it will be quite some time until a non-DNR version is released. This replaces the Searchers as my new favourite Western.
kdssrugby is offline  
post #105 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 02:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Hughmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

You dont need to DNR a movie, its a bit tricky to encode a movie with grain, since grain is random and makes it harder for the encoder to save bits. But with modern codecs and skilled compressionist, its no problem encode a movie with grain. But remember the encoding is just trying to recreate the grain pattern with blocks. Its not a lossless process.

The other reson to use DNR, is to make the movie look cleaner for estethic reasons, or to use it on old masters to make them look newer.

There is also DNR in restoration, were the filmstock has become to grainy compared to how it should look.



It cheaper to use DNR on an old master, then it is to create a new state of the art master. And of course you should save some encoding time on an DNRed transfer.



Yes. And the same goes with a 2 hour movie (or longer)

While grain is inherent in film is it readily apparent as some would claim on the big screen in theatres? I don't recall it being as obvious as it is on BD's. Isn't the grain that is readily apparent on BD's a result of compression of the film to BD when doing the transfer, therefore we are seeing more grain than one would actually see on the big screen in the theatre?

And I don't know if it was this thread or another, but one poster claims to remember exactly how TGTBATU looked in the theatres in the 60's and said it has the grain intact or visible. No, he doesn't remember. I mean really does anyone believe that he remembers exactly how it looked 40+ years ago?
Hughmc is offline  
post #106 of 521 Old 05-13-2009, 06:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Favelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

The BD looks like an animated film.

Ha ha exactly. Animated out of wax. Hey, maybe its the claymation remake of TGTBTU?? LMAO.

In terms of LFE, size does matter!
Favelle is offline  
post #107 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 01:09 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 Hughmc View Post

While grain is inherent in film is it readily apparent as some would claim on the big screen in theatres? I don't recall it being as obvious as it is on BD's. Isn't the grain that is readily apparent on BD's a result of compression of the film to BD when doing the transfer, therefore we are seeing more grain than one would actually see on the big screen in the theatre?

I believe that a projector can mask some grain due to how the technology works.

But yes we are not seeing natural grain(hey its digital). With the older D5 tapes we got grainimitation, and then of course our lossy encoders makes their own grainimitation with their image reconstruction of blocks (Doesnt D5 also use blocks by the way?).

But with the latest mastering technology and encoding program, I get the felling that we have a very good representation of the orginal negatives grainpattern.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #108 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 01:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Pecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

While grain is inherent in film is it readily apparent as some would claim on the big screen in theatres? I don't recall it being as obvious as it is on BD's. Isn't the grain that is readily apparent on BD's a result of compression of the film to BD when doing the transfer, therefore we are seeing more grain than one would actually see on the big screen in the theatre?

And I don't know if it was this thread or another, but one poster claims to remember exactly how TGTBATU looked in the theatres in the 60's and said it has the grain intact or visible. No, he doesn't remember. I mean really does anyone believe that he remembers exactly how it looked 40+ years ago?

It is an interesting point.

I've been to the cinema loads of times with loads of people and I've never once 'noticed' * grain, or heard anyone comment about it.

And yet several times on BD I've had people comment when a grainy scene appears, and I've noticed it far more.

Steve W

* When i say 'noticed', obviously I've seen grain structure, and what has been referred to as 'a film like look', but I've never been watching a film and suddenly it jumps to a scene and the sky looks like a load of maggots crawling around.

SW
Pecker is offline  
post #109 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 01:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Pecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ickibod View Post

Pecker, I can see what you're arguing, but you're completely missing the point. We all know that the Blu Ray looks better than the DVD. The DVD itself was a flawed release that featured a ton of Edge Enhancement and was a three-hour, grain-heavy movie stuck on a DVD-9. Obviously it's not going to look great.

Nobody here is trying to tell you the Blu-Ray isn't a step up. Of course it is. That's the easy part. What these people are lamenting is the fact that the release of this great film could have been astronomically better if they had just done a proper remastering job and not simply used an old master and processed it.

Ickibod, I'm aware of that. In this instance I was merely replying to the question as to whether or not it was worth buying.

Steve W
Pecker is offline  
post #110 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 01:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Oliver Klohs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Posts: 2,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta Tester View Post

I am debating whether to buy this one. It is one of those borderline movies, so whether I buy is not a big deal. I had seen this on HDNet about 2 years ago, and it looked awful. Then they broadcasted another version about 6 months ago, and it looked significantly better. Someone had also mentioned that they saw a restored print in an arthouse and it looked fantastic. I am wondering where this Blu-Ray sits relative to these 3 versions?

It will probably look similar to the latest HDnet version that you saw 6 months ago if you have full bitrate and full resolution HDnet.

If you only watch that movie every few years I would suggest to rent it when you feel like watching it and with a bit of luck by then you might also be able to pick up a better version as I am pretty sure that this one will be redone in the not too distant future.
Oliver Klohs is offline  
post #111 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 02:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
Rigby Reardon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

If you only watch that movie every few years I would suggest to rent it when you feel like watching it and with a bit of luck by then you might also be able to pick up a better version as I am pretty sure that this one will be redone in the not too distant future.

Guess that will also depend on the sales numbers for this version ... I'm afraid classics like this still sell poorly on BD, and since it already had a theatrical re-release a few years ago, I'm not sure whether MGM will revisit it anytime soon. I'm also wondering whether MGM even has any better film elements. Maybe the Italians will come to the rescue, but they probably don't have the rights to the English dub ...

BTW, one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the new audio commentary by Christopher Frayling on the BD. I listened to it yesterday and it's great, just like the ones on the other two Dollar films! He talks almost non-stop and provides lots and lots of interesting background information. This is a must for fans.
Rigby Reardon is offline  
post #112 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 03:02 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 Pecker View Post

It is an interesting point.

I've been to the cinema loads of times with loads of people and I've never once 'noticed' * grain, or heard anyone comment about it.

Not so strange, some people cant even notice what aspect ratio a movie had. And the other point is that a projection system do mask grain somewhat.

Quote:


And yet several times on BD I've had people comment when a grainy scene appears, and I've noticed it far more.

Do you use a projector or a flatscreen? And have you cranked up your sharpness setting?

Quote:


* When i say 'noticed', obviously I've seen grain structure, and what has been referred to as 'a film like look', but I've never been watching a film and suddenly it jumps to a scene and the sky looks like a load of maggots crawling around.

Well, many times filmmakers dont aim for movies to have a grainy look. Usually they aimed to have as little grain as possible, by selecting filmstock with very high density. And only taking more grainy filmstock because the situation demanding it.

But one day Saving Private Ryan came to the theaters*, were grain was part of the creative process. And suddenly filmmakers have gotten more daring in terms of grain in their movies.

But a modern movie is usually alot cleaner then some movies were in the past because of better filmstocks.

But the grain you are seeing in a BD is close to how the movie should look. It may not be pixel by pixel accurate. But it give you the experience of watching the movie as it should look.

DNR will not make a movie look accurate.

*= There have of course been other movies shoot grainy with intention before Saving Private Ryan.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #113 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 03:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Pecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Do you use a projector or a flatscreen? And have you cranked up your sharpness setting?

Projector, properly set up, Sharpness fully off (along with all other digitak processing).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Well, many times filmmakers dont aim for movies to have a grainy look. Usually they aimed to have as little grain as possible, by selecting filmstock with very high density. And only taking more grainy filmstock because the situation demanding it.

But one day Saving Private Ryan came to the theaters*, were grain was part of the creative process. And suddenly filmmakers have gotten more daring in terms of grain in their movies.

But a modern movie is usually alot cleaner then some movies were in the past because of better filmstocks.

But the grain you are seeing in a BD is close to how the movie should look. It may not be pixel by pixel accurate. But it give you the experience of watching the movie as it should look.

DNR will not make a movie look accurate.

*= There have of course been other movies shoot grainy with intention before Saving Private Ryan.

We're possibly at cross purposes here.

I;m not talking about the normal grain texture of film, or even those films made to look slightly grainier. I'm talkinging about excessive levels of grain. May I give an example?

'Breaker' Morant - excellent film, good Blu-ray Disc, film like structure, little use of DNR.

However, several times during the film we get a more grainy shot - there's one very near the start. It looks like the sky is actually film of sky projected onto a background of a bucket of maggots crawling around. I know what grain is and I know what a deliberately grainy film looks like, but I've never seen anything like it at the cinema. Don't take my word for it - check it out.

No one can tell me that this level of grain is what the director intended, nor that it doesn't distract from the viewing experience more than having the film in the wrong aspect ratio, or any number of other unwanted picture defects.

I strongly suspect that, when we see DNR, what we're seeing is a badly kept print with this sort of excessive grain removed. No every time, but some of the time.

Steve W
Pecker is offline  
post #114 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 03:28 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 Pecker View Post

I strongly suspect that, when we see DNR, what we're seeing is a badly kept print with this sort of excessive grain removed. No every time, but some of the time.

I do think most DNR cases has happend because of 2 reasons.

1. Old masters.

2. To please the mainstreem consumer.

If the print is in so bad shape that it has to much grain to be able to be released on BD, its also in to bad shape to be DNRed.

You cant undo the damages with DNR. You can remove the grain, but when they do it like this release, they also manage to remove the natural filmlook.

And im very sure most filmmakers dont want their movies to look "cartony" when they gets released on BD.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #115 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 03:50 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 Pecker View Post


No one can tell me that this level of grain is what the director intended, nor that it doesn't distract from the viewing experience more than having the film in the wrong aspect ratio, or any number of other unwanted picture defects.

I strongly suspect that, when we see DNR, what we're seeing is a badly kept print with this sort of excessive grain removed. No every time, but some of the time.

Steve W

Whether the director intended it or not the fact is it's there on the film so leave it alone. Take another example there is a night time scene in Mad Max 2 - The Road Warrior which is grain heavy. They left it alone. It's grain heavy because it's low budget film making and they were shooting in the dark but just leave it as it is. To DNR the scene would just destroy the detail.

Was The Untouchables a badly kept print ? Just twenty years old but destroyed by Paramount. Was Face/Off a badly kept print ?

I could go on and on but i think MovieSwede is correct and they do it because they think people want smooth or it's on old masters because they stupidly baked it in years ago.
FoxyMulder is offline  
post #116 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 04:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fpconvert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: w. mass
Posts: 1,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon View Post

Guess that will also depend on the sales numbers for this version ... I'm afraid classics like this still sell poorly on BD, and since it already had a theatrical re-release a few years ago, I'm not sure whether MGM will revisit it anytime soon. I'm also wondering whether MGM even has any better film elements. Maybe the Italians will come to the rescue, but they probably don't have the rights to the English dub ...

BTW, one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the new audio commentary by Christopher Frayling on the BD. I listened to it yesterday and it's great, just like the ones on the other two Dollar films! He talks almost non-stop and provides lots and lots of interesting background information. This is a must for fans.

This is the economic truth.

This is not Casablanca,Star Wars or Titanic or Jurrassic Park, etc. It is a low budget western with limited appeal and sales potential. We may go gaga over the story, acting and style but many won't even know the film exists...and they won't be buying it on BD, dvd, laser disc or vhs. When it shows on cable they flip by to Spiderman or the latest superhero flick.
Acting like they've insulted your honour by producing such an inferior BD by your standards is just so much drama as to be laughable.
fpconvert is offline  
post #117 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 04:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Pecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I do think most DNR cases has happend because of 2 reasons.

1. Old masters.

2. To please the mainstreem consumer.

If the print is in so bad shape that it has to much grain to be able to be released on BD, its also in to bad shape to be DNRed.

You cant undo the damages with DNR. You can remove the grain, but when they do it like this release, they also manage to remove the natural filmlook.

And im very sure most filmmakers dont want their movies to look "cartony" when they gets released on BD.

That's one point of view.

Another point of view would be to say that if, after DNR has been applied to remove the excessive grain the result is better than the SD DVD, then you have a choice - leave the public with the SD DVD, or give them a BD that's better, even if it's not as good as hoped.

What I really don't like is the implication that anyone who opts for the latter is not a film lover, and has low standards.

Steve W
Pecker is offline  
post #118 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 05:05 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 Pecker View Post

That's one point of view.

Another point of view would be to say that if, after DNR has been applied to remove the excessive grain the result is better than the SD DVD, then you have a choice - leave the public with the SD DVD, or give them a BD that's better, even if it's not as good as hoped.

What I really don't like is the implication that anyone who opts for the latter is not a film lover, and has low standards.

Steve W

You may well be a film lover if you opt for the latter but i would say your standards may well be lower than mine if you choose that latter option and i am not being snobbish about that but we all have different standards so maybe the word lower is not appropriate and maybe i should just say my standards are so obviously different and that way i'm less likely to offend.

I would also question the use of the word excessive grain and replace it with excessive DNR. See where we are going once again in this discussion ? Round in circles.
FoxyMulder is offline  
post #119 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 05:08 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 fpconvert View Post

This is the economic truth.

This is not Casablanca,Star Wars or Titanic or Jurrassic Park, etc. It is a low budget western with limited appeal and sales potential. We may go gaga over the story, acting and style but many won't even know the film exists...and they won't be buying it on BD, dvd, laser disc or vhs. When it shows on cable they flip by to Spiderman or the latest superhero flick.
Acting like they've insulted your honour by producing such an inferior BD by your standards is just so much drama as to be laughable.

I would suggest if what you say is true then they should have made sure it was optimized for the actual fan of the movie instead of scrubbing the grain to appeal to the very people whom you claim won't be interested in it.

They may not have insulted my honor but they have saved me money. They have made it an easy decision not to buy and i'm sure if what you say in your post is true then it's a sale they need so maybe they will think about that for future transfers to Blu Ray.
FoxyMulder is offline  
post #120 of 521 Old 05-14-2009, 05:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
Rigby Reardon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

And im very sure most filmmakers dont want their movies to look "cartony" when they gets released on BD.

GBU does not look "cartoony" at all. You guys are over-interpreting screenshots.
Rigby Reardon is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

Tags
The Good The Bad And The Ugly Blu Ray Widescreen

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