Originally Posted by roxiedog13
Yea, it's there 100% , as I said that is a moot point now , commonly discussed around the globe . Trying to pick apart the fact I see it in digital material with grain more is nothing more that further denial of the same.
I'm the one hear left scratching my head that you would have the nerve to suggest this is something unique to me as a deflection away from what exists . Good luck with that . I can put endless comments here from around the planet and the same from within the walls of this forum , it's not MY problem , it's simply a reality . Question is, how bad is it.........................really.
It's the same mosquito noise that is in all content more noticeable with grain less so in digital content. Your argument when you vehemently denied it existed at all was that I was seeing grain. Grain as I explained then is on 100% of the movie image when present , little more obvious in certain areas . The Mosquito noise however is more obvious in isolated areas within a scene, looks just like the snow we would see on the old TV sets back in the day . Random dots flickering in the background, the movement of this would draw my eyes . Aarow recently commented when viewing the new RS Series seen in IFA Berlin " the noise normally seen on the RS500/600 series appears to be less on the new projector, watching the movie blade runner." Blade runner , the original movie used as reference , known to contain film grain , one that you use quite often in fact to dispel noise funny enough . Mosquito noise , aka the digital dance, business of image and so on , is not to be confused with the electronic buzzing e-shift produces engaged , that really didn't bother me at all, probably because most movies have considerable amount of sound anyway, drowns it out majority of the time .
Putting it in perspective, it's not like it's "blatantly" obvious 100% of the time, some particular movies, certain scenes, and certain content excite it more . Difference with this digital noise is it shows up in content across the spectrum , not in one isolated kind of content.
Originally Posted by TheSony4KRises
I can only speak for the 1000es(and my rs600 model).
But having eye-balled the UHD's of Blade Runner(2007 directors cut) and Ghostbusters(1984) up close, I would categorically say that the Sony expresses all the grain with more fidelity than the Rs600. Finely delineated detail and grain is rendered with greater clarity. If the Sony was suppressing grain, then detail would be sacrificed, which is definitely not the case. The Rs600 has more noise and less detail with the aforementioned catalogue titles. This is not a swipe at the Rs600, which still displays a fabulous picture.
But with the grain heavy UHD catalogue titles , the 1000es walks away from the Rs600 with relative ease.
The 2K DI's on the other hand are a different kettle of fish.
I have X-Men 1st Class and Wonder Woman and the differences(in terms of sharpness/digital noise) are negligible.
Really hoping that we get UHDs for The Godfather, Taxi Driver ect ect so these discrepancies between 4k and 2k DI's can be examined.
Originally Posted by zombie10k
I also had the VW1100 and RS600 at the same time, the 1000/1100 processing is different than the 6xx / 3xx series. I've had the VW500/600 and VW665 here as well.
Have you seen these in person for comparison?
You guys probably really think I am beating a dead horse here, but there are flags in all these posts about the JVC noise which I just cannot look past.
E-shift HAS mosquito noise if your nose is to the screen, go and look at ANY plasma television and you will see the same buzzing yet nobody ever complained about that. Hell go up to the screen and look at the horror that is micro posterization on the Sony, no brand is squeaky clean with your nose to the screen. The JVC's also have pulse width modulation flutter from the chair visible across the entire image on the screen. The Sony lamps can flicker and wobble themselves.
BUT if you are sitting in your chair and you see noise on either of these brands, its in the source, plain and simple!
Well here is an interesting exercise. The only shot I have that I can compare noise with across two brands is the skyline shot from Lucy, but the cool thing is, I now have a digital version of this film straight from the UHD Disc, so I can compare a proper source extract frame from the UHD DI, and the 2K DI, the Sony, and the JVC, and we can see which renders the grain closest to the source material.
We know the Sony pulls ahead in these shots rendering the windows and such where resolution is concerned, but that's not for discussion right now, all the bolded areas above still point to the end user seeing TRUE TO SOURCE film grain and its associated inherent noise. I know with these shootout images in the past, we have had people claim the JVC image was noise because it has 'Jacked contrast levels?' well I guess the below is difficult to contend with, its the ground truth, you CANNOT look past a source frame since that IS the source, end of story.
If a person thinks 35mm film does NOT have a metric ton of mosquito noise you are in for a rude shock.
I desaturated all the images so you can focus on the grain only. In each case, you should be looking at the sky only, its clean, and the films natural grain is right there on display.
Which one of these is rendering the grain and noise closest to the original source? Be honest.
UHD vs JVC
UHD vs Sony
Sony vs JVC
Source vs JVC
Source vs Sony
Sony vs JVC