test - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 1 Old 04-24-2012, 06:41 PM - Thread Starter
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post


You are close. 2.40 is the display "gamma" assuming the display has a "perfect" black level of 0.000000Nits.
The other parameters of the primary function are basically black level compensation on steroids. If you have a less than perfect black level, then "gamma" in the traditional power law sense is no longer a constant.
Thus, if you read between the lines, the goal appears to be to make any display with an arbitrary non-zero black level *appear* to look like a display with a "perfect" black level of zero and a "gamma" of 2.40.
IOW, if you can't have "real blacks" ... fake it. smile.gif

 

Thank you for the reply on this. I'm still tryin to rap my head around some aspects of the new standard. Based on what I understand of it so far though (or think I understand), I'd probably disagree with your characterization of Rec. 1886 above. This may be due to differences in the way we define "display gamma" though. And I'd be curious to hear how some of you guys/gals would define that term.

 

FWIW, here's the way I would define it:

 

display gamma = ln (relative luminance) / ln (stimulus)

 

Or to put it another way:

 

stimulus ^ display gamma = relative luminance

 

My definition of stimulus varies depending the file type, and whether "full" or "studio" swing levels are being used. But in Rec. 1886 terms, "stimulus" would be the same as "V", which equals D-64/876 in 10-bit pro video coding, or D-16/219 in 8-bit consumer video coding.

 

In Rec. 1886 terms, I think I would define "relative luminance" as

 

(L -Lb) / (Lw-Lb)

 

IOW the measured luminance divided by white luminance minus black luminance

 

I understand why calibrators are interested mainly in the measured (ie absolute) luminance but IMO you don't really get "gamma" from the following equation:

 

ln (L) / ln (V)

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

A number of titles mentioned here were on sale quite cheap this week at the old yellow&blue, with a DVD tradein (see Great Found Deals forum). I had intended to post reviews of a few of those, but since I haven't found time for that, here's my quick take on some of em.

 

TITLE:

MOVIE: VIDEO TRANSFER QUALITY:
AVP * C ?
Babylon AD ? C Some color filtration.
Battle for Terra (animated) ? ?
Blade * C ?
Blade: Trinity * ? ?
A Clockwork Orange C D Film-like, but very soft/poor detail.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind * C D
Constantine * ? ?
Darkman C ?
Death Race ? ?
Demolition Man ? ?
Doom ? ?
Doomsday ? ?
Escape from LA ? ?
Fifth Element * C ?
Flash Gordon * ? ?
I Am Legend C ?
Impostor C D Very murky & muddy.
Inception * ? ?
The Last Starfighter ? ?
Matrix * C ?
Matrix Reloaded * ? ?
Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions * ? ?
Moon ? ?
The Postman ? ?
Predator ? ?
Replicant ? ?
Repo! The Genetic Opera ? ?
Resident Evil: Extinction * C ?
RoboCop * C ?
Serenity C ?
Soldier C C
Sucker Punch ? C
Surrogates C C Teal & orange color filtering, but otherwise good.
T2 C D Very soft detail.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines C ?
Terminator Salvation * C C Some color filtration.
THX 1138 ? ?
Timecop/Bloodsport ? ?
Total Recall (2006 BD edition) C ?
2001 C ?
2010 C ?
Underworld * C ?
V for Vendetta * ? ?
Watchmen * ? ?
Universal Soldier * ? ?

 

(*Titles listed as "on sale".)

 

----------------------------------------

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

So then The Saint and other films set "Tomorrow" would count

 

Maybe yes, maybe no (imo). IMO, an important aspect of this genre is the filmmakers' vision of the what life will be like in the near future... which is something you don't get much of from a film set tomorrow.

 

Would you consider The Saint to be SF btw?

 

(Housekeeping note: Deleted a couple of my recent posts that are no longer relevant, now that the DVD tradein offer is over. And merged relevant data into list in first post.)

 

----------------

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by capnsmak View Post

 

I know, I know...it's impossible to narrow it down to just 5...

 

You're right. It was impossible.

smile.gif

 

--------------------------------------

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post

(The more detail, the better imo, even if it means some occasional artifacts.)

 

I meant "real" detail here btw, as opposed to edge-enhancement (in case anyone was confused).

 

 

-------------------------------------

 

 

DIMAONDS ARE FOREVER (1971)

This is one of the best looking films that I've seen in the set so far. the color has been somewaht filtered, grain has been reduced, and contrast has been enhanced to give this a more modern look. But the picture is still crisply detailed, and the color is very rich and varied. One of the color highpoints in the film is Tiffany's purple bikini near the end in chapters 28-29. (Wow! eek.gifSome really nice browns, ochres, reds, blues, greens and aquas throughout as well. Really a pleasure to watch.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Dan View Post

what's funny with that Bigfoot video is that how many people believe, to this day, that it's real... It's a real film showing a guy in an overgrown monkey suit walking around.

 

Apparently the guy in the suit just had a very Bigfoot-like walk.biggrin.gif To bring this back on topic though, it's the shaky-cam and bad/grainy exposure that really sells the film's authenticity... just like in Trollhunter.

 

----------------------------

 

I'd like to add the 75th anniversary edition of Casablanca.

 

I've only seen a handful of B&W films on Blu-ray so far, but this is certainly one of the best-looking. There are a few flashback scenes where the detail gets a bit soft. And Some Like It Hot has finer detail and grain in many scenes than this. Some of the interiors get pretty grainy.

 

 

But IMO the detail in Csais better rendered in this.

 

But overall this has very nice

 

 

I haven't abandoned these threads btw. I've just been in acquisition mode lately, and am havin trouble finding otyher worthy transfers to recommend. Good catalog transfers aren't that common.

 

--------------------------------

 

Since wuther brought up Dr. No, I may as well add that to the list now as well, because I think it's a really nice transfer for a film made in 1962 (with better-looking color than LoA), and one of the best-looking films in the new Bond set.

 

Dr. No (21012 Edition)

 

There's slight bit of edginess in the picture, and I woudl not be surprised if teh picture has been digitall cleaned-up a bit (ie "Lowry-ed"), as you suggest above. But imho, it has very nice color, contrast, detail and even grain. And the color looks untampered with, and authentic to when it was produced, which is not something I can say about some of the other films in the Bond set. The color has both a nice deep luster and also nuance. It's got deep browns, wood tones, greens, reds, and fuchsias, but also nice pastels, creams, and skintones, and also those amazing copper doors in No's lair. There are also some nice closeups of Ursula's soft brown eyes (sigh). The film really is a feast for the eyes

 

-------------------------------

DETAIL
Some scenes are admittedly better than others.

COLOR
_military_ uniforms

Shadows and other ostensibly neutral colors also often appear a bit too olive-green or, dare I say, teal-hued. Look at the daylight scene at the end of Chapter 6 (just prior to the scenes in Feisal's tent) where the two boys are chatting with Lawrence while he rides his camel, for example. The shadows have a rather greenish or olive-colored cast to them, and the color palette is mostly dominated by olive/teal and reddish hues, which seems a bit unnatural.

SOUND
The sound is also showing it's age and seems somewhat distorted at times, which may disappoint the bass-heads. And there are a couple points in the movie where the film and audio seem to have been replaced, where the sound quality momentarily drops. Dialogue is generally clear and understandable though. And Maurice Jarre's moving score can still put a few tingles up the spine. I'm a bit surprised that the sound, and esp. the music score was not better preserved on this though.

HICCUPS/SKIPPED FRAMES
There are also several instances where the film appears to skip a frame, or a have little hiccup. For example, in Chapter 2 at 10:35, there appears to be a frame missing as Lawrence turns to leave and walk up a staircase just after he says: "??????????". I don't really know whether the 'hiccups" were just damaged frames that were removed, or an issue with the encode (encoding video with the wrong frame-rate can cause similarly dropped frames), or perhaps an issue with my player (which could be due for a firmware update), but some of the hiccups appear to be at the insertion/exertion points where "new" footage may've been added in, or older damaged footage was replaced.

CONTRAST
Contrast is also on the high side in this film (frankly a little too high for my taste), and some of the desert scenes can get quite bright and a bit stressful on the eyes. The night time scenes also tend to get quite dark, and sometimes a bit too mirky IMO. If you're used to watching darker, mirkier content on a bright display in a dark room, you may find some of the daylight desert scenes in this a bit overpowering, and want to dial contrast/white level on the display down a bit, or add a bit more ambient room light around the display for more comfortable viewing. You'll also want to make sure that your display and player are not crushing any shadow detail in the night scenes with a PLUGE pattern. (Note to calibration newbies: always adjust the black levels on "direct-view" displays with the typical ambient room lighting used for viewing TURNED ON to insure proper shadow detail on the display.)

Black levels look ok on  this btw. Although the image is on the contrasty side, I didn't notice many obvious instances where either the shadow or white detail appear overly crushed or clipped.

GAMMA
As far as display gamma is concerned, I would not recommend gamma much higher than the ITU-R BT.1886 recommendation of 2.4. Using a lower gamma (e.g. 2.2 or 2.3) would be more forgiving to the shadow detail in the darker scenes and make some of the more heavily saturated colors a bit more natural-looking, but it will also tend to flatten out the brighter desert scenes, and make them even brighter. If you find really high contrast films like this too fatiguing on the eyes though, then lowering _both_ the gamma and the white level on the display to more comfortable levels for your eyes is always a reasonable option.

 

----------------------------------

 

The best deals often come after the holidays. BB also has the individual 2012 Bond editions pretty nicely discounted thru 2/23. Some of the older films look and also sound quite good on BD btw, including Dr. No, YOLT, DAF, OHMSS* & TSWLM.

 

(*Small note: On OHMSS, I had to switch the virtual surround sound setting on my Sony BD player into Stereo mode to get acceptable sound staging on the analog RCA audio outputs, because the virtual surround feature on the player didn't seem to work correctly with the DTS-MA track on that disc. I also tried the Mono track on the disc, but it sounded pretty dreadful, so switching the DTS-MA track to Stereo output was a much better solution with my older video gear. The DTS-MA surround track may work just fine via HDMI though.)

 

-----------------------------------

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

 

If fine detail is high on your list of criteria for best transfers, then this a title that's definitely worth looking at. Contrast is on the higher side, and shadows sometimes appear a bit crushed. And the color palette tends to favor cyan and red. But the picture has little or no visible clipping, very fine grain, and barely a whiff of edge-enhancement anywhere. This has the finest and best-looking detail I've seen on Blu-ray so far, and a very filmic look to it in spite of the somewhat tweaked color palette. The detail in some of the Egyptian monuments and locations is simply breathtaking to behold.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

I picked up DAD on BD for a pittance on Black Friday and also watched recently for the first time. Interesting that after watching all 20+ films that this is the one that stood out for someone.

 

 

I was aware of it's poor rep, and wouldn't rank it near the top of my favorite Bonds, but I did enjoy the two female leads ("Jinx" and "Miranda Frost"), and some of the over-the-top action sequences, esp. the duels. Story was a bit nonsensical though, and a little over-long for my taste. A little tighter and more well-thought out scripting would have helped I think. Video transfer was sorta average.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Always enjoy you interviews, Scott. And I particularly look forward to giving this one a listen to see if Michael and Ray have have any new calibration tips/insights I can employ on my rickity old Sony XBR CRT (which keeps on tickin, despite takin a lickin).

 

I'm curious to hear both experts opinions of the recently adopted ITU-R BT.1886 display standard for HDTV production, and what (if any) gamma recommendations they may give their clients for authoring home-video content (ie Blu-rays, DVDs and such), if they wish to share a few thoughts on that. My math skills are a bit rusty, and I'm still tryin to rap my head around some of the particulars in this new standard, esp. whether it really represents 2.4 gamma as advertised, or not. There's a pretty good discussion about the subject in this thread in the Calibration forum...

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1409045/how-power-law-gamma-calibration-can-lead-to-crushed-blacks

 

... but it's still left me scratching my head on some issues.

 

I wonder, for example, whether some of the differences in opinion on "display gamma" here may be the result of different ways of defining that term. I would define it this way...

 

ln (Lv-Lb / Lw-Lb) / ln V

 

where...

V = Stimulus

Lv = Luminance of V.

Lb = Luminance of digital black (Y'=16 in 8-bit video)

Lw = Luminance of digital white (Y'=235 in 8-bit video)

 

But I suspect that a lot of the calibration software uses simply ln (L / Lw) / V, which would not be a truly normalized function imo.

 

I'm also sensitive to the color decoding issue. I went through a number of players before finally finding one in my price range with correct decoding, and that was only after a firmware update was applied (the Sony S390, in case anyone's interested). And my Sony CRT also had pretty terrible red push out of the box. Fortunately that was a relatively easy fix in the TV's service menu, with a littel help from folks on this forum.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post


While video is stating to rule the Cinema, have they really stopped making film? There are some directors that still use film, are they just using leftovers?

 

Well, this recent announcement on Fuji's site certainly ain't encouraging. frown.gif

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n130402.html

 

Kodak has been havin some tough times lately too. But as far as I tell, Kodak is still making a wide variety of motion picture films, both for production and archival purposes (and will hopefully continue to do so for a long time to come). Maybe Fuji's decision to stop making motion picture film will help Kodak in the short-term by increasing the demand for their film products.

 

Josh appears to be correct that the major manufacturers of motion picture cameras have essentially ceased production of new film cameras. A big reason for that though is the glut of used film equipment that's already available, due to decline in film production overall. And it sounds like the camera mfrs are still keeping their existing "fleets" of film equipment in good working order. So for those interested in shooting on film, it shouldn't be difficult to find one.

 

Another good article on the decline of film...

 

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/film-fading-to-black

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

The films in the The Legendary Heroes 3-Pack all come one disc btw... in case anyone was wonderin.

 

I've seen worse movies than these... but not much. biggrin.gif They definitely rank high on the schlocko-meter. Lords (John Carter) and Velasquez (Almighty Thor and The Mummy films) still look pretty good though. It's too bad they're stuck doin drivel like this though.

 

We need more films featuring hot 30/40-something action heroines.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

On-topic answer: anything that tickles the ole eardrums.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornemuse View Post

Classical, especially of the baroque variety, '50's & '60's r&r, a lot of stuff from 78 rpm records- from here:http://archive.org/search.php?query=%28collection%3A78rpm%20OR%20mediatype%3A78rpm%29%20AND%20-mediatype%3Acollection&sort=-avg_rating%3B-num_reviews

 

My PBS channel sometimes runs some great stuff (rock, pop, R&B, folk, etc.) from the 50's - 70's during their pledge drives, esp. as part of the "My Music..." series. The recent shows with Aretha, and Herman (of Herman's Hermits) were particularly memorable. Aretha put together a great collection of R&B/soul/funk performances, including tunes like "The Tighten Up"; while "Herman" hosted a retrospective of the 60's TV series "Hullaballoo", which was sort of hipper/trippier version of Bandstand. It's "Go-Go" segments, esp. the ones featuring "girl in the cage" Lada Edmund, were legendary. Lookin forward to the Burt Bacharach piece produced this year.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post


Interesting thread, but does anyone else suspect that it was started by a sock puppet spammer?

 

Ok, I'll admit it. I started the thread just to see how Dean would react. (Just kidding mods.)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

80's Pop (Safety Dance, anyone? Anyone?)

 

Frankie say relax. wink.gif

 

---------------------------------------

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post


Agreed.
In spite of what I said earlier about Weyland's apparent motivation for the voyage, I have to agree most of the audience (which represents the most important measurement wink.gif) considered it a "goof."
IF it wasn't, then RS should have made it clearer for the mob in the grandstands.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post


Perhaps multiple viewing would make it clearer for them. wink.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

RS has lost much of his mojo, to the point that people are, and should be worried about the BR sequel. He royally messed up with Prometheus. whether you liked the movie, loved it, hated it, or don't care, it's obvious that he had a monumental opportunity and missed the mark. Is it thought provoking and argument inducing? Yes. But not in a good way. The movie is SEVERELY flawed.

I love RS. He is one of my favorite directors. Alien is one of the few movies I feel are almost flawless. As is BR. But he has lost whatever it is that allowed him to make those movies as beautiful as they are. I even love Legend. I think it is one of the most beautiful movies there has ever been. But anything he's made after those, are seriously lacking in the areas of emotional content and beauty. Areas he previously lived in and ruled over. The dialogue free opening shots of Alien alone, are simply brilliance in film making.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

I don't know why I'm subjecting myself to this but here it goes...

 

Me neither. smile.gif But so far, you're posts have probably been the mots interesting reading here.


ADU
ADU is offline  
Reply Post Testing Area

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