'The Sound of Music' - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 180 Old 11-08-2010, 05:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
SaxCatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dry Dry Desert, AZ
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdssrugby View Post

You raise a valid point haines, but I think the difficulty most board members have with his comments is their highly theoretical nature. As Khronikos points out himself, the consumer technology we have to work with is decidedly limited in terms of space and resolution. While it's all well and good for him to argue that a 500GB transfer with 2GBS bitrates would be more transparent to the master, it has no relevance to how we watch films now...

Instead, most have chosen to concern themselves with the quality of the masters used for Blu-rays and the tools used on them (EE and DNR).

Well put!
The problem is not that the khronikos doesn't have valid points, it is that there is NO VIABLE solution in the foreseeable future that would satiate his complaints.
I can do the same thing as Khronikos for anything. For instance- airplanes. "I love to travel by air. However, it is a travesty that airplanes run on petroleum based fuel, pollute, are noisy and don't travel at Mach 5." All of these are valid concerns. But there is no real reason complaining about them unless you can suggest an obtainable solution that still suits the need for air travel or, in our case, high definition home viewing that is convenient and affordable.
SaxCatz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 180 Old 11-08-2010, 08:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
Ximori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Irvine, Ca
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by weakmesh View Post

Yes, I had the exact same problem, especially in interior rooms. I watched it on a PS3 hooked to a LED LCD, and this is the only disc I've ever seen do that. Nearly all of the reviews I read have given tSoM flawless (for its age anyway) video reviews, but I found the color shifting to be very distracting. I don't know enough about how to describe color, but I'd say that if their was a "neural" the picture was shifting very subtly from "neutral" to "warm" and back again.

Hi weakmesh, the last part of your post perfectly sums up everything that I see on this disc, i.e., a very subtle color shifting from neutral to warm and back again, and it happens quite often.

Aren't you a bit dumbfounded by the fact that it got stellar reviews and went unnoticed when it is indeed a distraction, as you said?
Ximori is offline  
post #153 of 180 Old 11-08-2010, 09:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ivanpino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdssrugby View Post

You raise a valid point haines, but I think the difficulty most board members have with his comments is their highly theoretical nature. As Khronikos points out himself, the consumer technology we have to work with is decidedly limited in terms of space and resolution. While it's all well and good for him to argue that a 500GB transfer with 2GBS bitrates would be more transparent to the master, it has no relevance to how we watch films now.

For most of us board members, the bitrate battle is not one worth fighting (unless its the case of a 3hr film being put on a BD-25). Instead, most have chosen to concern themselves with the quality of the masters used for Blu-rays and the tools used on them (EE and DNR). As the Gladiator BD has shown, this is a battle that can be won, and the differences this produces are far in excessive of what an increase in bitrate can accomplish (i.e. the consensus that the dutch BD looks slightly better despite a lower bitrate).

In the interest of full disclosure, I am part of the camp that Khronikos rails against.

The problem with Khronikos is that he wants to argue that Blu-Ray is compressed and how inferior it is to uncompressed. He also states that a good Digital presentation at the Theater is so much better than a Home viewing. Those are valid points but, so what. We have Blu-ray now and that is what is being discussed here and he just doesn't get that. Like he said himself "I don't live in this world" He somehow wants something thats not available for the consumer and won't be for quite some time if ever. It's like complaining about your car because it runs on fuel. I say we put Khronikos on a time capsule for 20 years and let him out and then maybe he'll be satisfied for whats available at the time.


Ivan
ivanpino is offline  
post #154 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 05:12 AM
Senior Member
 
khronikos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Hey, the problem with you guys when I originally started coming here was there was this whole hoax perpetrated by some leading members that bitrate doesn't matter after some point. I started to point out that bitrate indeed matters long after bluray standards are left in the dust. I realize now that this community is indeed part of that fetish of collectors that like to collect every standard in the hundreds and thousands. I revolt. I don't buy the bitrate crap and I don't buy this crap anymore unless the release is stellar and it can properly be held on a BD 50 which this film really cannot while maintaining a decent bitrate. Netflix will soon look just as good (give it a year or two and sit a bit farther back) as half of what is bluray especially with the opinion that bitrates are only good to a certain point lol. This can go two ways. I just gave you a link showing you that wireless is now capable of streaming actual uncompressed 1080p. How long before this gets into our homes. IDK but it will surely be less than a decade before it is widespread and they find a solution for giving us film wirelessly. Anyway, I don't care. Buy all the crap you want. My opinion can be contrary to yours. No problem there. The only reason I was commenting in this thread is because a whiner again thought that when I said this release was 'pretty good' he had to act all sarcastic and such. So then we have this. The dutch gladiator comp is getting pretty freaking old man. There are like 20 comparisons on Beaver that show unequivocally that higher bitrates in the 30 plus range are better than their lower end counterparts in the 20 range with grain preservation and detail even as much as 5Mbps can help a lot when we are talking serious, scientific issues of compression. The look of the grain seems to be able to change drastically when comparing 20Mbps releases and 35Mbps. But of course this matters none when in the end the lossless original is as far away as Mars.

But realize first and foremost I am about high bitrates on bluray and packaging that doesn't totally suck. I'll buy that and I do. I also buy Pixar, Disney, etc. This film isn't high bitrate or even close. It is barely past the half way mark of bluray. As Toy Story and every other digitally animated film shows us with their 24Mbps and higher bitrates these lowbitrates for film just don't cut it. For me at least. You are welcome to like whatever you want and so am I. Sorry I cannot come on here and gape in awe at every release like 75% of the people on here. I don't care about your feelings. You don't care about mine. So that's pretty apparent. The packaging for this blue is mediocre at best. The problem is that it's not just uncompressed. Bluray is just an inferior standard period. Maybe if they had actually thought this out instead of having cash signs on their brain they would have had 128GB discs at the start and a streaming standard of 80Mbps and I wouldn't be here. It will be replaced with something much better and it's not going to take that long I can wait. 40Mbps just isn't enough for film and that is that. But if that is all you have then you might as well try and use that to the best of your ability which in fact this film did and why I said it looked pretty good and that the release was fine. Not buyable for me as no longer films are but fine.
khronikos is offline  
post #155 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 05:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
SaxCatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dry Dry Desert, AZ
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
khronikos doesn't understand that Blu-Ray is the best we've ever had and the best we will have for quite some time on the consumer level due to cost and technology, not due to some greedy ploy by the studios or manufacturers. As such, there is no reason to be ANGRY about it as he seems to be. Yes, it has flaws. But based on current technology, it is just about the best that can be delivered to our homes at a mass market price. Unless you plan on not watching movies for 20 years, then start complaining about the things that CAN be fixed such as poor mastering and use/overuse of EE & DNR rather than being wrapped up in your pipe dreams about the future.
SaxCatz is offline  
post #156 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 05:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 3,371
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Quote:


because a whiner again thought that when I said this release was 'pretty good' he had to act all sarcastic and such. So then we have this.

Heh. Im whining because im being realistic? Seems your the one thats whining. Wanting something that we're probably never gonna have. And now your saying streaming is better than BD and will deliver uncompressed films. What exactly do you want?

Maby you should only watch movies at the theater then.

home theater addict
saprano is offline  
post #157 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 05:40 AM
Senior Member
 
khronikos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
No in fact it is mostly greed. No one fights the way HDDVD and Bluray did without money being the gigantic factor in how things are decided. Both sides could have said, HEY, let's not fight and let us not rush out what may be our last physical media. Let's get together and help each other out. Let's make this standard great. Instead HDDVD tried to bludgeon us with complete crap and Bluray did what they could to market soon after.

I was being realistic at least for me and you were more or less trying to antagonize me.

And do I sound angry because in reality I am not angry over this on a consistent basis at all. I am angry over other issues of much higher importance in the U.S. But yes I am pretty indifferent to how this all went down and it can get on my nerves when I see films that don't max their discs out or even try. TSoM is less guilty of this than others hence why it looks pretty good to me and the 4k is beautiful though we don't really see that anyway. The downres is appreciated. It didn't match the theater by a long shot I don't know what I was supposed to say.

Probable never going to have? Is the world going to end in the next decade? Maybe huh.

I've already said how many times that one of the main reasons I don't buy blurays is because of the horrible packaging and the DVD era masters. DVD was much much more elegant for many of its releases as far as packaging.

And, no it's not the best. Just like HDMI is being thrown out the door so quickly so could bluray be if they weren't so concerned about the backlash. We have easily overcome the tech gap. 128 discs could be issued tomorrow without much more cost involved as well the bluray standard could support at least twice the bitrate it's just that they have sunk too much in this format and its players and they would rather take their time in issuing us these discs two or three times again before they change things. That doesn't mean they won't but it's all about the bottom line. There were DVD's issued 4 or 5 times in one country. They might not be so brave with bluray but you will def see some triple dips by the time its done.
khronikos is offline  
post #158 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 05:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 3,371
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Compression is going to be used well into the future so i wonder what everyone's gonna do. It just seems weird to me to be worrying about this now. How the hell did we get through DVD's? Much less VHS!

Yes original film has more resolution, color etc. Yes BD may not match those specs 100%. But it gets pretty darn close to looking like it originally did when transferd right. Especially on our smaller displays.

home theater addict
saprano is offline  
post #159 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 07:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gekkou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos View Post

Instead HDDVD tried to bludgeon us with complete crap

Have you ever even watched an HD DVD? A well-produced HD DVD is proof that the amount of care put into an encode by the compressionist is in many ways more important to the final quality than raw datarate. Just look at Zodiac...

"Out of the mists of history, the legendary Esquilax! A horse with the head of a rabbit... and the body... of a rabbit."
Gekkou is offline  
post #160 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 07:36 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gekkou View Post

Have you ever even watched an HD DVD? A well-produced HD DVD is proof that the amount of care put into an encode by the compressionist is in many ways more important to the final quality than raw datarate. Just look at Zodiac...

Exactly ! No one here is saying bit rate doesn't matter but instead that care in the encoding etc is way up on the list compared to sky high bit rate. I have some old black and white SD DVDs that look pretty incredible and hammer a lot of BDs that just got the royale treatment including excessive poilishing.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #161 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 07:53 AM
umr
AVS Club Gold
 
umr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 10,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gekkou View Post

Have you ever even watched an HD DVD? A well-produced HD DVD is proof that the amount of care put into an encode by the compressionist is in many ways more important to the final quality than raw datarate. Just look at Zodiac...

One of my clients who works for Delux in this area told me the HD DVD tools were much easier to use than Blu-Ray at the time. They automatically tended to get the variable bit rate optimized for a given GB limit he was given on the disc while the BD tools required him to do it more by trial and error. He said he had to look at specific scenes which he knew were challenging and then tweak the BD encoder to do a better job. He was hoping the Toshiba tools would be ported over to BD.
umr is online now  
post #162 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 08:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 3,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 67
I think people are going to be disappointed if they ever see the original raw images of Sound of Music vs the Blu-ray. The difference is NOT going to be some night and day thing.

Compression in particular is not the be all end all bogey man either. If it's even handled moderately well, the quality of the master is by far the most important element.

I know it's not quite Apples to Apples but as an example, see below.

One of these is a JPG taken from the RAW original and laid back onto a png file. The other is a direct to png save.

The size of one is 1.46 megs, the other is 306k. But you'd have a heck of a time guessing which is which.

chirpie is online now  
post #163 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 03:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jvillain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 2,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


The size of one is 1.46 megs, the other is 306k. But you'd have a heck of a time guessing which is which.

No you won't.
jvillain is offline  
post #164 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 04:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
SaxCatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dry Dry Desert, AZ
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvillain View Post

No you won't.

Sure, I can tell too.
But can you tell the difference at 24 FPS?
I didn't think so.
SaxCatz is offline  
post #165 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 04:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
SaxCatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dry Dry Desert, AZ
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos View Post

No in fact it is mostly greed. No one fights the way HDDVD and Bluray did without money being the gigantic factor in how things are decided. Both sides could have said, HEY, let's not fight and let us not rush out what may be our last physical media. Let's get together and help each other out. Let's make this standard great. Instead HDDVD tried to bludgeon us with complete crap and Bluray did what they could to market soon after.

khronikos,
I understand what you are preaching. On an idealistic level, I agree with you.
However, you are not being entirely realistic.
When HD-DVD and Blu-Ray came to the market, Home Theater enthusiast were clamoring for a quality HD home format (not that D-Theater wasn't of reasonable quality, but it was, unfortunately, a non-starter.) The market was ready, and if Toshiba or Sony didn't deliver a format, someone else would have. Whoever was first to the market had a massive advantage. Blu-Ray, in the end, was able to overcome the months long advantage of HD-DVD after a tought battle. However, had Blu-Ray and HD-DVD been delayed two, three or even more years to be able to deliver what you demand, then another challenger would have emerged and grabbed so much of the market that, by the time BD & HD-DVD were "ready" to launch, they too would have been non-starters.
At this point, BD is such a good format that the vast majority of consumers, and even most AV enthusiasts, are quite pleased with it and not demanded a new format- just optimization of the existing format. For that reason, if a new format were to launch to meet your specifications, it too would be a non-starter because there would be too small a demand to support hardware development or to bring prices down to increase acceptance.
I appreciate your dreams and I wish they'd of come true. However, this is the reality of business.
SaxCatz is offline  
post #166 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 05:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 3,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvillain View Post
No you won't.
Well duh, I made it. ^_^

Is the difference there? Yes. Is it a big difference? No way. If you need to STUDY the screenshot, then that should tell you something. When people are claiming it'd change a transfer into "looking out a window" I say absolutely not.
chirpie is online now  
post #167 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 06:06 PM
Senior Member
 
khronikos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Look, nobody is debating whether good compression is worthy. Of course it is. I have watched a film or two close to twenty that I have enjoyed. I don't think I would ever buy anything in that range at more than 3 or 4 bucks but it says something. My opinion has never been about getting pure lossless. It's not possible for another decade or so. But it is possible to try and push out the best you can do for every release. TSoM was a long film hence it gets a pretty good review from me. Maybe some strange color fluctuations but IDK what that is about. 22Mbp is definitely not on my list of buy this now type material so I will leave it at that. I enjoyed this film more than I did GWTW which was a distraction in how soft it looked in certain parts and how grain dropped in and out. This release has some of the same problems but far less. The extra 5Mbps or so helped a bit imo.

AND B&W films can look extra exceptional on bluray. The color info being eliminated drastically reduces the issues we see with the data in the first place and the large amounts of compression in 4:2:0. That photo comparison is nice but that is less than 5:1 compression. You are almost proving my point for me. Would you care to compress that to 15:1 and show us what it looks like? That would more or less mimic what the best of bluray could do with obvious exceptions concerning a variety of factors.

You do realize that even in 4:2:0 color that we are seeing 15:1 compression even on 40Mbps films right? In 4:4:4 color it's a heck of a lot more than that. Of course I do most viewing on an 8 bit 42 inch Local Dimmer. I don't need lossless 4:4:4. But I would appreciate 30 to 40Mbps encodes from time to time. But that is not what I am getting. And I surely am not getting what I call collector type material except from criterion and the few companies will to make their packaging look decent, albeit at ridiculous prices and not always good master sources.

I'm not saying we need lossless by any means. But I don't think anybody can debate that this format could have been held off a year or two with cooperation and we would have 128s no prob and I can almost bet 2x the bitrate and you would not hear a blip from me. To say that another format would have come along is ridiculous. Sony and Toshiba would make sure nothing of the sort happened. They own most of the business together as far as discs and formats and they sure as hell could have worked together. That still does not fix the packaging but....

Of course as in war when stuff is laid out they go as fast as they can think (where the $$$ are) without actually thinking about it. Hence, we have films like Blade Runner that are totally unacceptable in my eyes (because of HDDVD mostly) and others like Apocalypse Now, which should have been one of the utmost high tier releases, sitting at 18Mbps, not more than double that of the best DVD's and really imo it was just a poor effort in general as far as compression is concerned. Or rather how their target bitrate was agreed upon. The dual audio track mess up did not help anything. Not acceptable to me. Everybody varies as to how they feel. I feel that transparent AVC on my setup to my eyes would be somewhere in the 100Mbps range for 4:2:0. I cannot prove this and I am more than happy to accept close to plus 30 releases.

When you start to get lower and lower into the teens I start to question what is the point, when do I stop and say this is just not good enough for the money you want me to pay again and again. That is just my take.

Interesting thread here where a guy says he compares a 38 AVC versus a HDCAM lossless: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archi...t-1080697.html
khronikos is offline  
post #168 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 06:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 3,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos View Post
L
You do realize that even in 4:2:0 color that we are seeing 15:1 compression even on 40Mbps films right? In 4:4:4 color it's a heck of a lot more than that. Of course I do most viewing on an 8 bit 42 inch Local Dimmer. I don't need lossless 4:4:4. But I would appreciate 30 to 40Mbps encodes from time to time. But that is not what I am getting. And I surely am not getting what I call collector type material except from criterion and the few companies will to make their packaging look decent, albeit at ridiculous prices and not always good master sources.
I export my 3D animation files in a lossless 4:4:4 format and use that to create my MPEG-4 clips. I'm aware of the hit the color takes. But all of this butting heads is simply me wanting to underline the fact that a proper master to work from trumps all else.
chirpie is online now  
post #169 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 06:25 PM
Senior Member
 
khronikos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Well, hey, just for fun could you post the picture comp and replace it with 100k or 50k for the lower rate? Just to see if it does anything drastic. I know it's all rather unscientific.

And in your opinion how much of a hit to color do your files take?

I agree masters are fantastic but we don't see a whole lot of that at this point either. Another point as to why this format could have waited.
khronikos is offline  
post #170 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 06:28 PM
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
i wish folks would just stop responding to this dope... yet another thread derailed by inanity
42041 is offline  
post #171 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 06:32 PM
Senior Member
 
khronikos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I wish people like you would seriously go bleep yourself and mind your own business. If you had bothered to read anything my original response was to say this looked pretty good before I was attacked for not saying this is the greatest thing ever created. We were actually discussing something before you came in with absolutely nothing to add.
khronikos is offline  
post #172 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 07:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ivanpino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos View Post
I wish people like you would seriously go bleep yourself and mind your own business. If you had bothered to read anything my original response was to say this looked pretty good before I was attacked for not saying this is the greatest thing ever created. We were actually discussing something before you came in with absolutely nothing to add.
What is your reference for displaying your Bluray's?
ivanpino is offline  
post #173 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 07:20 PM
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 khronikos View Post
I wish people like you would seriously go bleep yourself and mind your own business. If you had bothered to read anything my original response was to say this looked pretty good before I was attacked for not saying this is the greatest thing ever created. We were actually discussing something before you came in with absolutely nothing to add.
A "discussion" that, for the last page or two, has had nothing to do with the Sound of Music. Why, exactly, do we have to endure another khronikos/lagoonalight bitrate rant about a disc that's almost completely filled by the movie and exhibits no evidence of compression issues
...and now I'm feeding the troll too. Time to make two long-overdue additions to the ignore list.
42041 is offline  
post #174 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 08:16 PM
Senior Member
 
HVisone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
photo on top is the less compressed, although they are both severly compressed by the digital system, internet and so forth, and do not have the properties in terms of size as described by the poster as they are both the same size, and compressed by the same process.....duh.

Anyway I am now on my third viewing of SOM and I see either slight grain or digital noise in some scenes but only a little elsewhere. What got the thread somewhat sidetracked was this issue, aka the "clear window" view.

I can not tell if it is digital compression that is "enhancing" the grain in some scenes or what is going on, because only a comparison with the original negatives or film will answer that question in my case.

But what I can tell you, is when I saw the LOA remake into the new 70 mm film and had the privilege to see it on merely the third showing to the general public, it was pointed out in a brief introduction how clear and grain free that the film would be and the amount of detail we would see, primarily because of the larger negatives and the intense natural lighting in the desert.

They were right. For the outdoor scenes, there was no film grain visible at all on the theater screen, and as the scenes shifted to inside shots and then to night shots, one could see some grain and loss of detail.

So if someone starts babbling about how the beautiful grain is, how it was present throughout the LOA BD, then I will say the digital transfer was flawed. Indeed, if I can see "grain" in the desert scenes of the BD, then phooey, as someone messed with this or the BD transfer process has some issues...............I have no basis to say the same about Sound of Music, because when I saw it on the big screen, I had not become something of a professional photographer looking for such things back then compared to when I saw the "remake" of LOA

In LOA, I know that for the typical daylight outdoor scenes, the ONLY GRAIN one should be able to see is the grains of sand, and not the film grain. None at all.

That is how film should be.

best move for Universal-Stop transferring, mastering.If not for the sake of the films, do it for our planet.-Harris;
TOO LATE; Out of Africa is out-the worst ever
HVisone is offline  
post #175 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 08:21 PM
Senior Member
 
HVisone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
indeed, I add that I would be thrilled if all BD transfers met the standard of SOM

best move for Universal-Stop transferring, mastering.If not for the sake of the films, do it for our planet.-Harris;
TOO LATE; Out of Africa is out-the worst ever
HVisone is offline  
post #176 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 08:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 3,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by HVisone View Post

photo on top is the less compressed, although they are both severly compressed by the digital system, internet and so forth, and do not have the properties in terms of size as described by the poster as they are both the same size, and compressed by the same process.....duh.

Compressed by the digital system, internet and so forth? ?_?

If you perceive any noise it was probably because the photo was shot with an ISO of 640 which will introduce some noise. (I needed that 1/3000 of a frame speed because I was about 40 feet away from the subject)

The images did INDEED have the file sizes I quoted above. The PNG and the JPG were originally separate (that's where I checked their sizes) and then brought into Photoshop where I doubled up the canvas size and stacked them. They were then saved out in a png format. The extra compression the jpg save added to the image is thus preserved.

Sure I could've uploaded two separate images, but I thought it'd help keep people from cheating on guessing which was which. ^_^
chirpie is online now  
post #177 of 180 Old 11-09-2010, 09:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 3,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by HVisone View Post

indeed, I add that I would be thrilled if all BD transfers met the standard of SOM

Ditto. ^_^
chirpie is online now  
post #178 of 180 Old 11-10-2010, 01:45 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 HVisone View Post

photo on top is the less compressed, although they are both severly compressed by the digital system, internet and so forth, and do not have the properties in terms of size as described by the poster as they are both the same size, and compressed by the same process.....duh.

Anyway I am now on my third viewing of SOM and I see either slight grain or digital noise in some scenes but only a little elsewhere. What got the thread somewhat sidetracked was this issue, aka the "clear window" view.

I can not tell if it is digital compression that is "enhancing" the grain in some scenes or what is going on, because only a comparison with the original negatives or film will answer that question in my case.

But what I can tell you, is when I saw the LOA remake into the new 70 mm film and had the privilege to see it on merely the third showing to the general public, it was pointed out in a brief introduction how clear and grain free that the film would be and the amount of detail we would see, primarily because of the larger negatives and the intense natural lighting in the desert.

They were right. For the outdoor scenes, there was no film grain visible at all on the theater screen, and as the scenes shifted to inside shots and then to night shots, one could see some grain and loss of detail.

So if someone starts babbling about how the beautiful grain is, how it was present throughout the LOA BD, then I will say the digital transfer was flawed. Indeed, if I can see "grain" in the desert scenes of the BD, then phooey, as someone messed with this or the BD transfer process has some issues...............I have no basis to say the same about Sound of Music, because when I saw it on the big screen, I had not become something of a professional photographer looking for such things back then compared to when I saw the "remake" of LOA

In LOA, I know that for the typical daylight outdoor scenes, the ONLY GRAIN one should be able to see is the grains of sand, and not the film grain. None at all.

That is how film should be.

There is grain in the desert scenes in LoA, most prominently visible in the sky.
I saw the re-release three times in three different prints and there always was some grain.

Not much and not distracting mind you but it is ridiculous to say there wasn't any.
Oliver Klohs is offline  
post #179 of 180 Old 11-10-2010, 02:07 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 khronikos View Post

I wish people like you would seriously go bleep yourself and mind your own business. If you had bothered to read anything my original response was to say this looked pretty good before I was attacked for not saying this is the greatest thing ever created. We were actually discussing something before you came in with absolutely nothing to add.

If you want people to take you seriously I suggest not to invade every thread about a disc that has lower bitrates with the same discussion.

If you are so serious about this why not start your own thread and show us examples of how much better releases could look if they were done your way.

And for the record: I have been advocating for quite some time that releases of long movies that have an intermission anyway could very well be split between two Blu-Rays in order to allow for higher bitrates. However I am not posting this in every thread about movies where this (unfortunately) hasn't been done.
Oliver Klohs is offline  
post #180 of 180 Old 12-10-2010, 11:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
General Kenobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kalifornistan
Posts: 5,889
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 309
Finally got around to watch my copy of this last night and was very impressed. Great transfer with very minor flaws IMO and I thoroughly watching the movie for the first time since my VHS copy. My 3yr old keeps asking to play the "goat song" and "goodbye" and has been singing along. Very happy with this purchase. Now on to Moulin Rouge and Inception this weekend!

My Rig

Kenobi's 31 Days of Horror:

 

2012

2011

2010

2009

General Kenobi is online now  
Reply Blu-ray Software

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