Originally Posted by tbird8450
It's one thing to gape in horror at a still shot, and another to make a critical assessment while actually watching the film in motion under normal conditions. I find that the two make for very different experiences. But that's me.
Depends on the problem. In my experience, edge-enhancement looks the same in motion as it does in still shots; so I'm not going to support those releases.
There are, however, some releases that render grain in such a way that still shots look terrible and motion looks fantastic. 'Battlestar Galactica' is probably the best example (the HDDVD,) I thought it was a great looking transfer (in terms of presenting the director's intent) then I happened to hit pause and all that great faux-grain, in freeze frame just looked weird and blocky and all messed up
Eyes Wide Shut is another example. It's not a perfect transfer in motion (I suspect there's been some subtle DNR and there is a hint of color-banding associated with 10bit > 8bit conversion (why, or why, couldn't blu-ray have 10bit color?) but it's basically a solid effort at recreating Kubrick's soft-looking film... Then I freeze-framed it, and the difference was the same as Battlestar Galactica.
But, so far, that particular grain phenomenon is the only time I've seen a movie look better in motion than in stills. EE is the same in stills and film (unless a specific shot is singled out. The Dark Knight is a tadunfortunate-looking, but that one shot of the funeral looks terrible in still and in motion. Fortunately, it's only one very brief shot and not indicative of the whole film (even so, it saved me a good $10 in not buying the movie until I saw it on sale a few months later))