Originally Posted by amirm
They are not "closer to the source." They are closer to the vision of the director. The source for movie shots of real life, is real life. A softer version of real life doesn't make it more true to the "source." But I think we are agreeing
If we are going to use real life as the source, then the grain reduced version may be closer to that source, since real life doesn't have grain like film. Basically, both may be different than real life (one softer and one grainier), but the softer one could still be the closer one.
But on your subject of cleaning up certain problems, Bladerunner
is probably a good example that supports what you said. It would be interesting to hear what people here think of that one. A lot of effort was put into it. I wonder if people would have preferred that the effort not be done.
When things that get grain reduced get great reviews partially because of it the studios are likely to go that direction. Transformers
seems like a good example.
As somebody in the industry told me just about when HD DVD came out, much of the improvement people talked about with DVD in the last few years was due to noise reduction and the industry had gotten people used to that. He said it would be interesting to see what happened with HD given that.
Originally Posted by Grubert
If it's any consolation, the grain in the night scenes in Transformers
looked very natural. And it sold a lot of HD DVDs despite the grain.
I'm not clear given the
. Are you saying Transformers
was an example of doing things right or doing things wrong? Transformers
is one of those where I think the reactions to it told the studios that at least some noise reduction would result in more praise.