Film Grain Allowed - Survey Poll - Page 3 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Film Grain Thread - Your Reasons For Taking Part Or Not Taking Part in The Thread
I don't understand the film grain allowed thread 0 0%
I get all my information from the Tier thread with regards image quality 0 0%
I dislike the thread starter and will not take part because of that 0 0%
I dislike film grain 0 0%
I want to take part but i'm not sure how 0 0%
I feel my opinion will be criticized so do not take part 0 0%
I prefer to just read the views of others rather than taking part 0 0%
My screen size is too smallk to pick up some of the issues others see 0 0%
I find the thread to be too negative and not positive enough 0 0%
Other reason - I will post my reason in the thread 0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

1  2  3
Blu-ray Software > Film Grain Allowed - Survey Poll
JBlacklow's Avatar JBlacklow 07:39 AM 08-29-2009
I'm of the opinion that such a thread, unless set down with firm boundaries and the support of the mods, will cause more problems than it will solve. And regardless if such a thread is created, I'd go so far as to say that the "tier" threads should be closed and archived, and that any "film analysis" or "grain reproduction" threads should be reserved for the worst titles, if for no other reason that those are the only titles anyone can come to anything approaching consensus on.

The tier threads have been and always will be problematic, though not from the wilder claims being thrown around in this thread. It's not "demographics"--the same people who put Hannah Montana at #1 Blu-ray this week are not the same as those who did the same for I Love You Man last week outside of one's imagination--nor is it "grain-haters", who make up a small part of the AVS community whose presence is almost always exaggerated. If we were to believe that, every DNRed film would have hundreds of defenders, yet I could count on my hand the number of actual "grain is bad" posters in any given thread. No, it's because the tier threads, despite whatever original intent they had, are used for positing opinions that change for every person as some sort of technical reference. Because of that, I've never liked them, and never participated in them. Hell, almost no one here at AVS likes them, and they're ridiculed by most other HD boards anyway, so if they're worthless and used by posters on both sides as some sort of tool to bash others with, then dump them.

Now does there need to be a thread to notify us of egregious uses of DNR, EE, and other problems? Yes, and that thread is welcome. What is not welcome is the mentality from the extremists. I can get behind looking at Gladiator or Patton or Dark City and saying "this is very wrong and should stop ASAP", but I can't support a discussion where (as FoxyMulder pointed out) even small amounts of DNR/EE "disqualifies" a decent-to-good film or makes it somehow a piece of trash. Nor can I support discussions where bashing of people who can't see the extent of the damage because, like most viewers they don't have professionally calibrated 120" screens, is tolerated. We've had several members resort to vicious personal attacks merely because others can't see what they see, which to me is highly disturbing. And the language gets so extreme for even decent releases ("abominations", "trash", "disgusting") and slightly tolerant viewers ("ignorant", "film/grain-hater", "gamer teen") that no actual discussion can take place. If we were to take the suggestions of some here, then the majority of posters, those represented by people like rdclark and bplewis24, would be unwelcome. If I was an new AVS member or even a long-time member with an average setup and tolerant outlook, I certainly wouldn't want a thread where saying the The Dark Knight looked good on my display made me some kind of gamer-trash Philistine responsible for destroying film, or seeing a bit of DNR on Silence of the Lambs and not minding it meant that I was some kind of Mr Magoo-esque lowest common denominator.

In the end, if I could trust all of us (myself included) to discuss minute issues and understand that even a little deviance from flawless is acceptable, and have opinions on both sides respected without any reference to what demographic they belong to, the acuity of their vision, or their level of education, then such a thread would work. Unfortunately, I can't say that's possible right now.

mnc's Avatar mnc 07:48 AM 08-29-2009
I just want the very best "Director Approved" transfer possible!
mnc's Avatar mnc 07:49 AM 08-29-2009
Oh yeah, also I only have a 50" tv.
FoxyMulder's Avatar FoxyMulder 08:58 AM 08-29-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlacklow View Post

I'm of the opinion that such a thread, unless set down with firm boundaries and the support of the mods, will cause more problems than it will solve. I certainly wouldn't want a thread where saying the The Dark Knight looked good on my display made me some kind of gamer-trash Philistine responsible for destroying film, or seeing a bit of DNR on Silence of the Lambs and not minding it meant that I was some kind of Mr Magoo-esque lowest common denominator.

At the moment i don't think the thread caters to the extreme views of a minority. The Silence of the Lambs on Blu Ray is on the minor issues list with an explanation of why it's there. In other words it's still recommended viewing so extremist views which would have seen that placed on a major issues list are discounted. The thread doesn't really cater to the extremist and we try to find a balance.

The Dark Knight is on the changed from theatrical presentation list and the edge enhancement is mentioned. Once again i don't consider that release to represent the worst transfers which can be found on the major issues list.

I actually think we are striking a pretty good balance and not going too overboard and extreme.

I just think changing the title to Film Analysis and Reference List would actually help in telling people what the thread is about. It's a film analysis thread with a reference list which we call the main list.

I know Art suggested calling it just the film reference thread but i could see the moderators having issues with that due to there being a Tier thread in existence and adding film analysis does actually describe what is taking place within the thread which is people analysing films on Blu Ray and then expressing their opinion about the transfer and where the film should be placed on our lists.

I do have a suggestion for how to make the thread even better but it's controversial and might not be supported. I'll post in the actual thread tomorrow about what i'd like and seek members opinions on it.
HVisone's Avatar HVisone 10:54 AM 08-29-2009
this thread is pointless--discuss grain thread, yes or no


and not stuff like I don't like whoever or dislike the thread starter....blah blah
MovieSwede's Avatar MovieSwede 11:02 AM 08-29-2009
I think we should raise the bar on what titles gets on the list. If we point out a flaw on a movie it must be proof somehow on that issue.

As an example, we can se on Star trek V that they used DNR. Because one frame shows gain, that disapears on the next. There is no other explanation for the grain to behave like that.

While certain titles scream Noise reduction (like Zulu) many others are on the border were you cant say for sure. So the more scientific we are about things like this, the better.
Pecker's Avatar Pecker 12:34 PM 08-29-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I think we should raise the bar on what titles gets on the list. If we point out a flaw on a movie it must be proof somehow on that issue.

As an example, we can se on Star trek V that they used DNR. Because one frame shows gain, that disapears on the next. There is no other explanation for the grain to behave like that.

While certain titles scream Noise reduction (like Zulu) many others are on the border were you cant say for sure. So the more scientific we are about things like this, the better.

But already, I disagree.

Zulu may have had some DNR, but it still looked jaw-dropping.

And this is the problem - the non-use of DNR is raised to absolutist status, irrespective of other factors.

The thread has become an excuse for fanboys to say "Look how good I am - I spotted some DNR. Ha ha ha ha!" Cue terms like 'waxworks', 'butchered', 'raped', 'abomination', etc.

Film fans want to watch films in the best way possible, not stare at 150" screens from 2', congratulating themselves on spotting minor 'defects', then using hyperbole to describe them.

Steve W
FoxyMulder's Avatar FoxyMulder 01:31 PM 08-29-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I think we should raise the bar on what titles gets on the list. If we point out a flaw on a movie it must be proof somehow on that issue.

As an example, we can se on Star trek V that they used DNR. Because one frame shows gain, that disapears on the next. There is no other explanation for the grain to behave like that.

While certain titles scream Noise reduction (like Zulu) many others are on the border were you cant say for sure. So the more scientific we are about things like this, the better.

I tend to agree. I have an idea to make the thread even better and implement some of what you say but it's probably not going to be liked.

Pecker - I don't have anyone coming into the thread screaming the terms you are using here. I think using such terms as those can be a negative way to point things out.

I view on a 106inch screen and it's about 9 and a half feet away. Thats comfortable viewing distance for me. I don't need to go up to 2 feet away to spot defects and neither does anyone else with a large screen. For example i have just finished watching episodes 5 to 8 of 24 Season 7.

It's riddled with mild edge enhancement and this is easily noticeable in the show. All medium to long range camera shots exhibit the issue. Lots of characters have dark outfits on in the show and lots of dark against white type backgrounds and so easy to see the edge enhancement. Now depending on your tolerance for EE it might not bother you. It bothers me but i'm still able to watch the show and i so wish it wasn't there. Why do they feel the need to sharpen an image which has 6 times the resolution of DVD ?

So i must take issue with your post that says we watch from 2 feet away and use the terms you describe in this thread.

You may have a high tolerance for issues with discs which others might find a problem - Now you may argue otherwise but your posts on certain films suggest you do have a higher tolerance level for certain things than some of us. I point out in the Film Grain thread that not everyone will consider things spotted a problem and if you cannot see the issue then be happy but allow those of us who see an issue to point them out.

I also know that the stance i take means people will think i'm show boating or trying to make myself out as better than some. Not at all and thats not the intention of all this. I know though from comments from some that people do think that way and resent me and some have even made it a little personal and before i started the thread they seemed to have no issues with me at all so it's shame as it tends to create a them and us philosophy. I dislike that.

Film fans want to watch films in the best way possible. Thats your words. The thread sets out to ensure people are notified of problem discs and it sets out to point people in the direction of discs which are generally excellent. I don't see why you say the things you do and wonder if you even read the thread because your descriptions of it do not fit with anything that goes on in the actual thread. It seems based more on perception of what you think the thread is like than what the thread actually is like.
Phantom Stranger's Avatar Phantom Stranger 06:21 PM 08-29-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlacklow View Post

The tier threads have been and always will be problematic, though not from the wilder claims being thrown around in this thread. It's not "demographics"--the same people who put Hannah Montana at #1 Blu-ray this week are not the same as those who did the same for I Love You Man last week outside of one's imagination--nor is it "grain-haters", who make up a small part of the AVS community whose presence is almost always exaggerated. If we were to believe that, every DNRed film would have hundreds of defenders, yet I could count on my hand the number of actual "grain is bad" posters in any given thread. No, it's because the tier threads, despite whatever original intent they had, are used for positing opinions that change for every person as some sort of technical reference. Because of that, I've never liked them, and never participated in them. Hell, almost no one here at AVS likes them, and they're ridiculed by most other HD boards anyway, so if they're worthless and used by posters on both sides as some sort of tool to bash others with, then dump them.

I can not agree with the part I bolded in your quote at all. You do realize the PQ Tier thread is the most popular thread in the entire Blu-ray Software sub-forum here by a wide margin? And that many regulars in other Blu-ray forums use it as a point of reference for a variety of purposes? The Tier thread is what it is and all the criteria are laid out for visitors to understand its intent and methodology. This board gets slammed by other forums mostly because it was known as a haven for HD DVD fans during the format war, not because it hosts the PQ Tier list.
42041's Avatar 42041 08:24 PM 08-29-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pecker View Post

But already, I disagree.

Zulu may have had some DNR, but it still looked jaw-dropping.

And this is the problem - the non-use of DNR is raised to absolutist status, irrespective of other factors.

The thread has become an excuse for fanboys to say "Look how good I am - I spotted some DNR. Ha ha ha ha!" Cue terms like 'waxworks', 'butchered', 'raped', 'abomination', etc.

Film fans want to watch films in the best way possible, not stare at 150" screens from 2', congratulating themselves on spotting minor 'defects', then using hyperbole to describe them.

Steve W

I've never piped up about EE if I didn't feel like it harmed image quality, and I've never piped up about DNR if it didn't leave bothersome artifacts and loss of detail. I'm sure there's some contingent of viewers for whom these issues are an end unto themselves, but I think the vast majority of people complaining about them do so because they're distracting, not because they're looking for something to complain about. If these issues don't bother you, then feel free to enjoy the movies and disregard all opinions to the contrary, but please stop trying to read minds, you're completely off-base on this one
IanD's Avatar IanD 08:28 PM 08-29-2009
Don't we all want, for lack of a better term, "Theatrical Transparency": the home viewing of a movie in as close to the original Director-intended theatrical presentation as possible?

I think we need a thread that attempts to quantify how closely a Bluray release approaches Theatrical Transparency, divorced from any subjective opinion as to how acceptable such a release is to any one individual. This might include grain, colour timing, EE, artifacting, etc elements and serve as a basis for individuals to make their own decision on whether that release is acceptable enough to them to purchase. It would also be useful to include comparisons between different region releases, so that enthusiats could determine the best possible release available at that time.

I find the comparison threads, which collate information from various sources to determine how the Bluray release might differ from previous incarnations, invaluable. In a sense, these comparison threads provide an approximation to a Theatrical Transparency indicator. The Gladiator comparison highlighting the missing arrows, compared to the previous DVD release was very informative, for example, and indicated to me that this Bluray release was not particularly Theatrically Transparent. However, I am dismayed that subjective opinions on the acceptability of the imperfections revealed, intrude at times and derail what I consider to be the intent of the thread.

I don't think a thread dedicated to film grain only is particularly useful as there are many other factors involved in Theatrical Transparency.

Perhaps comparison threads, with results summarised into a master list, ranked according to relative Theatrical Transparency, might be useful.

At the end of the day, I believe we all just need factual information on which to base our important discretionary spending decisions, in such an uncertain economic climate.
abintra's Avatar abintra 10:04 PM 08-29-2009
I would love to see an authentic to source reference list.

The film grain allowed thread title does currently seem to be counterproductive to what I gather is meant more of a master list of titles that have, as faithfully as possible, reproduced what its creators intended something would appear when displayed in a quality setting, whether it be theatrical or in ones home, as well as alert consumers to those releases that have been post processed in a manner contrary to that.

I personally don't have the knowledge to particpate but am extremely interested in learning about the releases that those that do have that knowledge deem as being representitive as faithful to the source.

The PQ tier thread interests me to a lesser degree because it seems to be heavily weighted towards "eye candy". No matter what film I watch, my desire is for it to look as accurately as it can within the format rather than as subjectively "good" it can for any general screen size or personal bias/affinity that any untoward manipulations may be used to cater to (DNR, EE, etc.). Any thread, site, list with that goal in mind is a good thing in my opinion.
Art Sonneborn's Avatar Art Sonneborn 07:39 AM 08-30-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

While certain titles scream Noise reduction (like Zulu) many others are on the border were you cant say for sure. So the more scientific we are about things like this, the better.

Best course IMO.

Art
Art Sonneborn's Avatar Art Sonneborn 07:43 AM 08-30-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

Don't we all want, for lack of a better term, "Theatrical Transparency": the home viewing of a movie in as close to the original Director-intended theatrical presentation as possible?

I think we do unlike the teir thread. Many many films are incredibly film like and appear to be exactly as you mention above but would fall flat on their face in the tier thread.


Art
Art Sonneborn's Avatar Art Sonneborn 07:58 AM 08-30-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlacklow View Post

If I was an new AVS member or even a long-time member with an average setup and tolerant outlook, I certainly wouldn't want a thread where saying the The Dark Knight looked good on my display made me some kind of gamer-trash Philistine responsible for destroying film, or seeing a bit of DNR on Silence of the Lambs and not minding it meant that I was some kind of Mr Magoo-esque lowest common denominator.

But at the same time saying it "looks good on my display" says almost nothing if it can be shown that significant flaws exist by other members and in the process of scrutiny and report that kind of comment keeps coming up. If I don't have the eye or the equipment to reasonbly judge titles I shouldn't post analysis.

My personal distaste for the tier thread came from just a few titles that were slammed and dropped way down when it was obvious that they are incredibly good representations of the way the title looked theatrically. If I'm buying titles this is what I want to be the gold standard not did it looking like Halo3.

IMO ,reference titles are titles which give us as close to that first generation presentation irrespective of the color,grain, soft focus effects or any other narrow set of parameters. Sure this is tougher than just saying it looked 3D but then that is what we are asking for.

Art
stumlad's Avatar stumlad 08:12 AM 08-30-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

That is exactly one example. Can you come up with any others?

And again, there's no zooming involved. It's opening the mattes by 21 pixels each on top and bottom.

The amount of letterboxing on a 1.85:1 movie is less than the overscan on a typical television. And it's certainly less than the typical projection variances in the majority of commercial theaters. Cinematographers know enough to leave a little leeway around the edges of the frame to account for those variances.

Opening up a 1.85:1 image to 1.78:1 does not affect the compositional intent of the photography. While Jason Reitman may be anal enough to complain about that, few others in the industry are. It's simply not a battle worth fighting.

Interview with the Vampire, Dumb and Dumber (I'm sure there are a few more too by Warner/ New Line)
sb1's Avatar sb1 08:21 AM 08-30-2009
I was about to post something, but after reading the last three pages, I'm not even quite sure what this thread is about anymore.

I guess I'll just say I'm up for anything that's not distracting, with regards to the transfer quality. If any one aspect of the picture drew my attention away from the movie itself, then something's gone wrong somewhere.
stumlad's Avatar stumlad 08:32 AM 08-30-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

The reason I don't participate in the tier thread is simply that. It is much like some guys I know who refuse to look at any black and white films because "they look like cardboard ,why bother".

Art

That is a misunderstanding of the PQ Tier thread. The goal of it is to see what movies take advantage of the resolution offered by blu-ray. Films that are softer (show less resolution) are placed lower. Films with bright and cheery colors tend to get placed higher as well (however, there are many films with muted colors that are ranked high). There are black and white films that are ranked high too. It all has to do with the level of detail that a picture shows. Most of the people in there do not like DNR or EE either.

The difference between the two threads -- In PQ Tier, if a director intends his film to look soft, most likely that film will not be part of the top couple of tiers... In the artistic intention thread, it may be ranked as reference. I think both threads can co-exist peacefully as they both have different goals.
FoxyMulder's Avatar FoxyMulder 08:32 AM 08-30-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post


I don't think a thread dedicated to film grain only is particularly useful as there are many other factors involved in Theatrical Transparency.



The thread i created is not just about film grain. I think the title is obviously putting some people off the thread and misleading others. Read page 1 and you will see exactly the criteria for being in the thread.

Yours is not the first post to think it's just about film grain. So obviously the title is causing problems and putting people off participating.

If a moderator is reading this i wonder if they can tell me if i can change the thread title to something else ?
Art Sonneborn's Avatar Art Sonneborn 09:22 AM 08-30-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by stumlad View Post


The difference between the two threads -- In PQ Tier, if a director intends his film to look soft, most likely that film will not be part of the top couple of tiers... In the artistic intention thread, it may be ranked as reference. I think both threads can co-exist peacefully as they both have different goals.

Yes, and really I believe that a thread that goes for transparency to the source as the primary criteria (admittedly more difficult to demonstrate than just pretty pictures) is the real reference thread.

Art
JeffY's Avatar JeffY 09:27 AM 08-30-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Yes, and really I believe that a thread that goes for trasparency to the source as the primary criteria (admittedly more difficult to demonstrate than just pretty pictures) is the real reference thread.

Art

Completely agree, anything else holds no interest for me.
RobertR's Avatar RobertR 10:33 AM 08-30-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Yes, and really I believe that a thread that goes for transparency to the source as the primary criteria (admittedly more difficult to demonstrate than just pretty pictures) is the real reference thread.

Art

Well said!
stumlad's Avatar stumlad 10:49 AM 08-30-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Yes, and really I believe that a thread that goes for transparency to the source as the primary criteria (admittedly more difficult to demonstrate than just pretty pictures) is the real reference thread.

Art

I don't believe either are the real "reference threads". The PQ tier thread makes no claims that it is "reference" in any way. ie, a reference transfer can be Tier 4... The film grain / artistic intent thread has the following issues in my opinion:

[Disclaimer, before I list them, please understand that I truly believe FoxyMulder has the best intentions, and I like the idea of the thread]

1) What are we comparing to? How do we know what the artistic intention was? Should i trust someone who says they saw it in the theater in the 80s and "it looks just like it".
2) Artistic intention also changes over time as we've seen with directors trying to re-invent their old movies. Color timing changes... Godfather for example.
3) We rarely ever hear of a director giving the actual blu-ray (versus the transfer) their seal of approval... and even if they did, questions about them can occur -- Godfather again
4) This is the biggest -- even if we were given the master to compare to, how would we know that the movie is reference when there are typically other masters floating around (take the chinese movies - Flying Daggers, Hero, Crouching Tiger, etc... A lot of movies that were mastered in early 2000s will likely be given new transfers, a new master will be formed, and voila, the movie now looks better... so what does that mean now for the 80s movie that was place in "reference" tier.

If the goal of the thread is simply to say that the blu-ray lacks any signs of DNR and EE, that's a different story.... it still doesn't make it a "reference" thread.
IanD's Avatar IanD 09:23 PM 08-30-2009
Theatrical Transparency will be difficult to identify and more like a best guess based on objective evidence (and maybe even subjective recollections from members), than an absolute, but I think something is better than nothing.

I also believe the objective, more scientific Theatrical Transparency indicator is compatible with an adjunct, subjective "Wow Factor" indicator: an assessment of how good the Bluray appears on presentation, regardless of its transparency to the theatrical source.

There will obviously be some titles that look very good, even though they might not be Theatrically Transparent, so personally I would like both objective and subjective information so that I can make my own assessment about whether a release is good enough for me to warrant purchase at that point in time. I can't afford to multiple dip because Studios can't be bothered to produce the best the format can support the first time round.

Personally, I think movies are artworks and a product of the time that they are created: that is part of the appeal. At a minimum, that original presentation needs to be preserved (or restored if needs be). I have no issue if a revisionist version is produced as an adjunct, but not as a replacement. Imagine the outrage if current art historians wanted to build-up the paint on the Mona Lisa to give it a more 3D appearance and more vibrant colours, because that is what the current generation prefers and better technology is available now to achieve that. Sometimes I despair that the Studios want to do exactly that with movie artworks.

I had an opportunity to watch the French and German Bluray versions of "Dances With Wolves". The French version was incredibly grainy and I think the contrast blown, whilst the German version looked much cleaner with more reasonable contrast and fine grain, yet softer. I have no idea which was more Theatrically Transparent, but the German version had the greater Wow factor. It gave me pause for thought about how enamoured I was with original reference presentations, if it turned out that the French version was actually more Theatrically Transparent; however I have no objective information about the reference source to do a comparison and that is something I would like to have available. Hence my interest in an objective Theatrical Transparency indicator as a starting point.

Whilst I still do not quite know what this particular thread is about and I fear I may have gone severely off-topic, I did notice that the linked thread on "Film Grain and Artistic Intent" does seem to parallel the idea of Theatrical Transparency, so maybe we just haven't arrived at common terminology yet for the same concepts.
1  2  3

Up
Mobile  Desktop