The Good, The Bad and the Ugly comparison *PIX* - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 06:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pincho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

If revisionism is the justification then one could also argue that since film has a more limited dynamic range than video that it should be digitally tweaked to increase contrast.

Oh wait that has been done with some recent releases and results have generally been poor, or done by distorted TV picture tricks. Never mind that it distorts picture quality and changes the artistic intent, unless of course it is proper restoration.
Although the Mona Lisa would look better with neon colors.

Or perhaps do away with 24 frame motion blur which is also an inherent by product of shooting on film and at that frame rate. I'm sure that some do not like that blurring and prefer a more 'life-like' appearance. Oops again can be done with some TVs with interpolation and really how good does that look, fake quite frankly.

Otherwise we could argue nonsensical tangents till the moon turns red.

Best Regards
KvE


PS If Unicorns were in every shot those to should be removed. ;}~

All of your ideas mentioned throw the image from realistic looking to fake looking... they are not like grain removal which does the opposite, to make something change from fake looking to more realistic looking.

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 06:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pincho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrcorwin View Post

...what? You say grain is a fault. Fine. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it of course. Filmmakers, both past and present, appear to disagree with you. I'll side with them.

They had no choice. Oldschool breeds oldschool, now we have a new medium. We are no longer film viewers, we are now digital viewers. We have moved on, and directors have had their jobs for so long that they find it hard to learn new tricks.. (The old dog quote)

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
post #183 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 06:42 AM
Member
 
bosque11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 66
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

All of your ideas mentioned throw the image from realistic looking to fake looking... they are not like grain removal which does the opposite, to make something change from fake looking to more realistic looking.

If you feel DNR looks realistic, you must know a lot of waxy-looking people.
bosque11 is offline  
post #184 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 06:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pincho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosque11 View Post

If you feel DNR looks realistic, you must know a lot of waxy-looking people.

I said grain removal. I didn't say anything about removing details from people's faces.

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
post #185 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 06:48 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 Rigby Reardon View Post

Here's another consideration (from someone who is by no means an expert on film restoration, but knows a thing or two about video encoding): Grain is essentially noise that is hard to compress, thus consuming bandwidth when using lossy video compression. While that might sound surprising to some of you, grain reduction is often used to reduce artifacting and/or preserve more (!) high-frequency detail in the final encode. This is simply because grain reduction in many cases frees up bandwidth for a better encode. In some cases it can obviate the use of "brickwall" low-pass pre-encode filters that make the image more compressible.

To further add to the confusion , some systems (such as the DVO Grain Management software) have a "regrain" option that allows the technician to replace "ugly" or difficult to encode grain with artificial, "cleaner" grain. So when you see grain on a BD, it is not necessarily the original film grain ...


I've often suspected this.

Compression on DVD & Blu-ray Disc only works because of the principle that most frames are almost identical to the frame just before and just after it - a TV showing 'static' is supposed to be one of the most difficult things to encode.

Grain is random on film, so the encode must change every pixel which shows grain 24 times every second.

I can see why excessive grain would use up bandwidth at a frightening pace.

Steve W
Pecker is offline  
post #186 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 06:50 AM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

They had no choice. Oldschool breeds oldschool, now we have a new medium. We are no longer film viewers, we are now digital viewers. We have moved on, and directors have had their jobs for so long that they find it hard to learn new tricks.. (The old dog quote)

No....we are not. The vast majority of films are produced on actual film stock.
jrcorwin is offline  
post #187 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 06:50 AM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

I said grain removal. I didn't say anything about removing details from people's faces.

Remove the grain and you remove detail.
jrcorwin is offline  
post #188 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pincho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrcorwin View Post

No....we are not. The vast majority of films are produced on actual film stock.

Oldschool.. you want to stay oldschool that is up to you. But digital will replace 35mm in the next 2 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrcorwin View Post

Remove the grain and you remove detail.

No.. you remove grain. You are quoting two opposing polar arguments which isn't logical.

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
post #189 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:05 AM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

No.. you remove grain. You are quoting two opposing polar arguments which isn't logical.

You don't get it and that's fine. I'm not going to attack you over it. You've made your point and I've made mine. It's time for both of us to move on from this topic entirely.
jrcorwin is offline  
post #190 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deviation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

I said grain removal. I didn't say anything about removing details from people's faces.

There's no detail hiding "behind" the grain. The grain isn't a layer that you can remove with DNR to reveal the detail beneath. Grain is part of the image and removing it takes detail along with it. Period.
Deviation is offline  
post #191 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pincho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

There's no detail hiding "behind" the grain. The grain isn't a layer that you can remove with DNR to reveal the detail beneath. Grain is part of the image and removing it takes detail along with it. Period.

It is opaque, so you just brighten it to see the detail beneath. You make it's colour match the colour on the next, and previous frame where the grain has moved away from.

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
post #192 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:22 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 Pincho View Post

It is opaque, so you just brighten it to see the detail beneath. You make it's colour match the colour on the next, and previous frame where the grain has moved away from.

That can't work, because at the same time you'd be sampling something with the 'correct' colour and evening it out using the grain in the next or previous frame, so you'd be taking away as much as you were giving.

Also, grain has its own look, which this removes.

Steve W
Pecker is offline  
post #193 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckZ View Post

300 was supposed to look very grainy. It was added digitally.

Yes, and you also had people concerned that there was something wrong with their Blu-Ray players and their displays because of all the grain.

I think the studios are honestly in a Catch-22 when it comes to grain.

Personally, I would rather have the grain and keep the detail then scrub it away and end up with waxy looking people.
ack_bk is offline  
post #194 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:27 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 Pincho View Post

It's not an argument though.. it's a fact. Grain was originally a fault, and was learned to be lived with.

Grain is no more a "fault" than a painters canvas is.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #195 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pincho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Grain is no more a "fault" than a painters canvas is.

Painters often hide the canvas beneath the thick paint. I'm a painter myself. Paintings are also vague, and are not supposed to look photo-realistic. Photo-realistic is a term taken from a camera, and a movie uses a camera, therefore a movie should look photo-realistic, as it includes all of the facilities for realism. The creation of the camera was to capture real life as closely as possible, and the objective of an painting is to capture real life as loosely as possible.

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
post #196 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
bt12483's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

This is not the place to argue "better than DVD" excuses. You have to do better than that.

I think it's funny how your "tone" has changed since the days of posting HD DVD *PIX* threads....

From Beowulf HD DVD *PIX* thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

Thats ok. I'm not imposing anything at all. What matters is its an obvious improment over standard definition.

Why is it that "obvious improvements over SD" used to be "what matters"....yet now "you have to do better than that"?
bt12483 is offline  
post #197 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:37 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pincho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pecker View Post

That can't work, because at the same time you'd be sampling something with the 'correct' colour and evening it out using the grain in the next or previous frame, so you'd be taking away as much as you were giving.

Also, grain has its own look, which this removes.

Steve W

I'm not sure that this is correct. the skin pores that you don't want to remove should be stationary, and the grain should move. Therefore the waxy face can most likely be eliminated. I'm pretty sure that a graphic designer can do this by hand, but would take ages to do it. I always say that a computer can do what a human can do, but teaching it is difficult.

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
post #198 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

The creation of the camera was to capture real life as closely as possible, and the objective of an painting is to capture real life as loosely as possible.

That's the worst aesthetics lesson I've ever read!

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #199 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:41 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 Pincho View Post

Painters often hide the canvas beneath the thick paint. I'm a painter myself. Paintings are also vague, and are not supposed to look photo-realistic. Photo-realistic is a term taken from a camera, and a movie uses a camera, therefore a movie should look photo-realistic, as it includes all of the facilities for realism. The creation of the camera was to capture real life as closely as possible, and the objective of an painting is to capture real life as loosely as possible.

No, the intent of movies are not to recreate "real life as closely as possible".
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #200 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
Stinky-Dinkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

The creation of the camera was to capture real life as closely as possible, and the objective of an painting is to capture real life as loosely as possible.

Hahahahaha, what?!?
Stinky-Dinkins is offline  
post #201 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pincho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

No, the intent of movies are not to recreate "real life as closely as possible".

That becomes clear in the Jurassic Park thread, where the dinosaurs are all scrutinised with how realistic they look. People do want realism in most cases, but struggle to cope with change.

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
post #202 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pincho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

Hahahahaha, what?!?

People do not buy photo-realistic paintings. They think that the artist is not being creative enough. The camera however was designed to capture real life.. originally of family members. A movie is a portrayal of a story that isn't supposed to stray into art that might throw you out of the real life environment. It should be believable in a sense, otherwise you aren't engrossed in the story fully.

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
post #203 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Just stop, Pincho, please! You clearly aren't an art history or aesthetics teacher and, frankly, thank God for it.

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #204 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:51 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 spectator View Post

Just stop, Pincho, please! You clearly aren't an art history or aesthetics teacher and, frankly, thank God for it.

But wait, he is a painter. And a photographer!
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #205 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
Stinky-Dinkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

People do not buy photo-realistic paintings. They think that the artist is not being creative enough. The camera however was designed to capture real life.. originally of family members. A movie is a portrayal of a story that isn't supposed to stray into art that might throw you out of the real life environment. It should be believable in a sense, otherwise you aren't engrossed in the story fully.

There are about a billion different styles of approaching painting, and realism is one of, if not the, most popular genres (and account for some of history's most famous pieces.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(visual_arts)

Likewise there are about a billion different ways of stylized photography that [purposefully] produce images far different than what your eyes can perceive. Different filters, etc.

I really don't have much of an opinion of The Good The Bad and the Ugly, but your painting/camera comparison was just asinine. It just makes very little sense.
Stinky-Dinkins is offline  
post #206 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:52 AM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

A movie is a portrayal of a story that isn't supposed to stray into art that might throw you out of the real life environment.

My oh my
jrcorwin is offline  
post #207 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

People do not buy photo-realistic paintings. They think that the artist is not being creative enough. The camera however was designed to capture real life.. originally of family members. A movie is a portrayal of a story that isn't supposed to stray into art that might throw you out of the real life environment. It should be believable in a sense, otherwise you aren't engrossed in the story fully.

I find the animated Pixar more engrossing than about 95% of the movies out there that are shot on film. How do you explain that?

Sorry, but I call BS. The story is what makes a movie engrossing. You can tell a story with hand puppets and still engross the audience.
ack_bk is offline  
post #208 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:53 AM
Moderator
 
PooperScooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 19,898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Ok, enough! Talk about the BD please. Although I can't believe there's really something new to be said.

larry

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Alva Edison
PooperScooper is offline  
post #209 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 07:55 AM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

Ok, enough! Talk about the BD please. Although I can't believe there's really something new to be said.

larry

Haha...ain't that the truth...
jrcorwin is offline  
post #210 of 521 Old 05-15-2009, 10:32 AM
Member
 
Scarfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Are we still discussing the actual topic? I saw that the thread has gone back to an argument instead of actual discussing.
Anyways, for what it's worth, here is a review from blu-ray.com: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies...55&show=review
Scarfather 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