or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Film Reference and Analysis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Film Reference and Analysis - Page 6

post #151 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

How much edge enhancement does 30 Days of Night have because you have to remember what you will see on a 50inch set could be small compared to what you see on larger projection systems so it's possible that minor edge enhancement on the 50inch set becomes major edge enhancement annoyance on a 100inch projection system......

Bingo...I have a Pioneer 5080 and I suspect that I dont see nearly as much as those with these "wall-sized" screens. Of course, one detriment to having such a big screen is that now every single tiny little thing is now a BIG thing.

Makes it tough for the studios to "get it right" with you 7-foot screen owners breathing down their necks!
post #152 of 1897
Ok, there are two votes in FAVOR of Sleepy Hollow.

I will add a vote AGAINST Sleepy Hollow. It just doesn't look like actual film grain to me. It looks more like video noise.
post #153 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Yes, there is definitely EE on 2001: ASO.


Yep ! Not nearly as bad as the DVD but still there. Who here has seen 2001 in 70mm recently ?



Art
post #154 of 1897
Are you sure it really was EE on 2001? thought we had a large debate on that one.

Since it only were apperent in Dawn of man sequense, and that could come from another reason.
post #155 of 1897
Black Hawk Down suffers from some EE throughout the movie (sometimes major EE for a couple quick seconds here and there). I remember it on the DVD as well, so I can't say if the EE was intentional and therefore true to artist's intent.

Anyone else want to chime in?
Also, 1 vote for Donnie Brasco. Damn near flawless transfer (pure pleasure to watch at 90")
post #156 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Ok, there are two votes in FAVOR of Sleepy Hollow.

I will add a vote AGAINST Sleepy Hollow. It just doesn't look like actual film grain to me. It looks more like video noise.



I'm not voting but agree with you here.
post #157 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Ok, there are two votes in FAVOR of Sleepy Hollow.

I will add a vote AGAINST Sleepy Hollow. It just doesn't look like actual film grain to me. It looks more like video noise.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...efinition.html

Rob, Mr. harris thinks it looks like film grain.


post #158 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...efinition.html

Rob, Mr. harris thinks it looks like film grain.



Very interesting review!

I found this part to be the most interesting:

Quote:


Mr. Lubezki's work, which looks akin to the three-strip Technicolor productions of the 1930s and early 1940s, which still used the silver key image to both add contrast, control the black level and tone down color, which is also a star of this film. To the best of my knowledge, the process was last used by John Huston in Moby Dick (1956).

I definitely defer to Mr. Harris on this. If that is the look that Lubezki was going for, the three strip Technocolor process of the 30s and 40's, it could certainly account for the unique looking "grain" that I thought looked more like noise.

Perhaps it is time for me to revisit this one. I do own it, as I love the movie. I actually have the poster on my wall in my HT!
post #159 of 1897
It is a great film but I do agree with you that the grain can look a bit digital.

post #160 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

It is a great film but I do agree with you that the grain cal look a bit digital.


Yes, but for purposes of this thread, does it match the original print (even if the grain is digital looking)?
post #161 of 1897
Check Be Kind Rewind! It is perfectly natural film like, with right amount of grain.
post #162 of 1897
I would like to add the following movies that to me conform very much to the requirements spelled out by the thread starter:

Blazing Saddles
Bullitt
Die Hard IV
X-Men 3

Two movies I disagree with and would like to give my reasons:

Despite significant improvements compared to the first version of that movie to me the 5th Element still has a processed look to it and does not strike me looking like projected film, might have been like that in the cinema but on its own merits it should be excluded IMO.

2001 does not have that 70mm look to me - not enough detail, too much EE. Together with Grand Prix it comes the closest however to a proper transfer of a 65/70mm movie.

I also agree that these do look very true to what they should look like:

A Passage To India
Blade Runner - The Final Cut
Casino Royale
No Country For Old Men
Pan's Labyrinth - UK Release
The Road Warrior
Shooter
Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3
post #163 of 1897
+1 for Shooter to be placed in Category 1.
post #164 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Are you sure it really was EE on 2001? thought we had a large debate on that one.

Since it only were apperent in Dawn of man sequense, and that could come from another reason.

IMO, the Dawn of man sequence looks a little "off" simply because the HD format reveals(aka shows their weakness) the front projection special effects a little more than before. This is the ONLY part of this film that looks dated to me.... the monkey suit thing & the front projection just dont work anymore.

Still though, a classic and a great transfer!
post #165 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

My latest boilerplate:

At this juncture it's important to remember that AVS is a home theater enthusiasts web site. This particular forum is for those interested in the highest level of accuracy in film reproduction possible, within their budget of course. Those who do not share this interest should expect to find disagreement with their opinions, and may want to reconsider their participation here.

I have no idea how this applies to me. Your implication that I'm not interested in accuracy in film reproduction and suggestion that I should reconsider participating at AVS is beyond unfounded.

Brandon
post #166 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

This may not be possible, but I would like to see if the people contributing here comply with at least the SMPTE, but preferably the THX max viewing distance guidelines. Check out this diagram http://hd1080i.com/chart.gif . And here is the entire article: http://hd1080i.blogspot.com/2007/01/...0-to-eyes.html

Vern

Ouch - this diagram has those TVish diagonals in it. I think a little more than 1 screen width away from a substantially sized screen should count as compliance ?
post #167 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

I would like to add the following movies that to me conform very much to the requirements spelled out by the thread starter:

Blazing Saddles
Bullitt
Die Hard IV
X-Men 3

Two movies I disagree with and would like to give my reasons:

Despite significant improvements compared to the first version of that movie to me the 5th Element still has a processed look to it and does not strike me looking like projected film, might have been like that in the cinema but on its own merits it should be excluded IMO.

2001 does not have that 70mm look to me - not enough detail, too much EE. Together with Grand Prix it comes the closest however to a proper transfer of a 65/70mm movie.

I also agree that these do look very true to what they should look like:

A Passage To India
Blade Runner - The Final Cut
Casino Royale
No Country For Old Men
Pan's Labyrinth - UK Release
The Road Warrior
Shooter
Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3

I agree with the vast majority of this post (haven't seen Pan's UK, Bullitt or Road Warrior). I think TFE looks great, but I agree that it does have a slightly digital look to it.

I agree with Blade Runner, Casino Royale, No Country, Shooter, and Pirates.

If you are voting for Grand Prix, I would second that vote as well. If not, count this as its first vote!
post #168 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

I think TFE looks great, but I agree that it does have a slightly digital look to it.

It sure is eye candy but it was shot and intended to be projected as film and filmlike it is not so I think it does not fit the goal set out in this thread.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

If you are voting for Grand Prix, I would second that vote as well. If not, count this as its first vote!

Nah, no vote for Grand Prix from me - I saw it theatrically and it looked sharp as a tack and ultra-detailed with clearly visible grain. The HD-DVD IMO fails to capture that look, edges are too soft and detail is still below what is possible on Blu-Ray, plus where is the grain ? It is not as bad as Patton but compare it to Blazing Saddles and you'll know what I mean. IMO there was too much grain reduction applied to this one, too.

This is one of Warner's earlier efforts but so far there is a consistent pattern that they treat 35mm better than 65/70mm which of course means that we will not be able to see the large format stuff looking as good as it can. I think it is time that we demand just that - Cleopatra, LoA and Ben Hur are not just supposed to look just good but as great as the format allows
post #169 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

It sure is eye candy but it was shot and intended to be projected as film and filmlike it is not so I think it does not fit the goal set out in this thread.

Agreed.


Quote:


Nah, no vote for Grand Prix from me - I saw it theatrically and it looked sharp as a tack and ultra-detailed with clearly visible grain. The HD-DVD IMO fails to capture that look, edges are too soft and detail is still below what is possible on Blu-Ray, plus where is the grain ? It is not as bad as Patton but compare it to Blazing Saddles and you'll know what I mean. IMO there was too much grain reduction applied to this one, too.

This is one of Warner's earlier efforts but so far there is a consistent pattern that they treat 35mm better than 65/70mm which of course means that we will not be able to see the large format stuff looking as good as it can. I think it is time that we demand just that - Cleopatra, LoA and Ben Hur are not just supposed to look just good but as great as the format allows

Thanks Oliver.

I think your post points out one of the major difficulties in this thread: its hard to vote if we haven't seen the movie projected theatrically. I have to admit that I have not seen Grand Prix in 70mm so I can't dispute what you say.

One thing that does confuse me a bit in some of these 65/70mm discussions is the reference to grain. In my 70mm viewing experiences, grain is rarely noticeable, with a few exceptions (usually shots of a bright sky, back-lighting etc.).

In any event, based on your comments, I will withdraw my vote for Grand Prix, at least until I am able to see it in 70mm.
post #170 of 1897
Thread Starter 
I have added Donnie Brasco, Bullitt, Live Free Or Die Hard and X-Men 3 to the listings although Donnie Brasco has had one negative recorded. I have moved 2001 to Category 3 and recorded a negative against The Fifth Element for having a digital look rather than film based look. I have placed Mad Max 2 - The Road Warrior, Shooter, Pirates of the Caribbean parts 2 and 3 and Sleepy Hollow into the main list.

I have also placed a link to the EE/DNR thread as it can be useful for people as that thread is intended to showcase films with those problems.
post #171 of 1897
So check me if I'm wrong but the basics here are true to the source,without digital artifacting or tampering etc ?

Art
post #172 of 1897
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

So check me if I'm wrong but the basics here are true to the source,without digital artifacting or tampering etc ?

Art

Yes....I want the best titles to be in the main Category 1 warts and all if that's the intended look and any films which have minor issues when transferred to Blu Ray but are mostly an enjoyable film look which is as true to the source as we can ascertain to be placed in Category 3 with an explanation of why they are there such as pointing out some minor issues with EE in a few scenes or some minor DNR applied to some scenes which don't detract from the overall viewing experience. Category 2 titles are simply those that have been voted for and they could be voted off the list or onto the main list or added to the Category 3 list.

No doubt the thread needs work on it and input from everyone in the direction it will head and it needs people to give input if there are problems with any films on the list.

Anything with major DNR or lots of excessive EE or other artifacting won't be added to the list or if they are added will in time be voted off by those viewing who pick up on these things. Films like Sweeney Todd which have had some digital airbrushing done to Depp's face could still be added to the list if the movie retains a film like look and hasn't been DNRed or had excessive EE added for the Blu Ray release...In other words if the digital airbrushing was done before it was released to the theater then it's the intended look even if it distracts some people ( and i understand it's not a video look and there is film grain in that release which suggests a good transfer to Blu Ray although no ones nominated it yet )

I would prefer films shot with a video look even if it's what the director intended to not to be on the list at all or placed in a new category perhaps and that's where some disagreements might be had. ( For example Crank - EE added post production and it looks like it did in the cinema but it doesn't look like film )

All of the things which you have posted previously in the thread hold true and are valid for what gets onto the list.
post #173 of 1897
You guys realize that you are basically just heading towards a 2nd "tier" list, but substituting the word "category". I get the point in saying "this is a great example of how our movies should be presented". However you are starting to cross the line that made me have a problem with the tier thread. Namely arbitrarily judging just how bad the stuff that isn't "tier 0" or in this case "category 1" is. Having a "reference Blu-Ray" list makes sense as does a list of botched Blu-Rays to avoid. What doesn't make sense is trying to peg down exactly how mediocre everything else is. It's just too subjective and will just lead to the same apathy that that makes you guys want a 2nd list to start with. If you think about it, what galls people with the tier thread is not that a movie they felt looked good didn't make "tier 0", but rather that it was placed in a position that they disagree with.
post #174 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Yep ! Not nearly as bad as the DVD but still there. Who here has seen 2001 in 70mm recently ?
Art

Art, I saw it a few years ago and no way does the HD transfer do it justice. There certainly wasn't any EE on the 70mm print I viewed. None.

2001 needs a new transfer. No doubt about it. It has nowhere near the amount of detail HD is capable of giving us based upon what I saw in the big screen with my own two eyes. GRAND PRIX and numerous other releases look better and have more detail. Still, I think few releases are really pushing BD to the limit of what it can do.

I wonder about LAWRENCE, having seen that in 70mm not long ago. That sucker is detail city. Just insanely detailed.
post #175 of 1897
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperron View Post

You guys realize that you are basically just heading towards a 2nd "tier" list, but substituting the word "category". I get the point in saying "this is a great example of how our movies should be presented". However you are starting to cross the line that made me have a problem with the tier thread. Namely arbitrarily judging just how bad the stuff that isn't "tier 0" or in this case "category 1" is. Having a "reference Blu-Ray" list makes sense as does a list of botched Blu-Rays to avoid. What doesn't make sense is trying to peg down exactly how mediocre everything else is. It's just too subjective and will just lead to the same apathy that that makes you guys want a 2nd list to start with. If you think about it, what galls people with the tier thread is not that a movie they felt looked good didn't make "tier 0", but rather that it was placed in a position that they disagree with.

Yah but Category 3 isn't saying the film looks bad it's saying this film looks film like but is pointing out a few issues with the transfer to Blu Ray such as some minor EE or other problems.

I don't see this as being a Tier picture quality thread at all.
post #176 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

Yes....I want the best titles to be in the main Category 1 warts and all if that's the intended look and any films which have minor issues when transferred to Blu Ray but are mostly an enjoyable film look which is as true to the source as we can ascertain to be placed in Category 3 with an explanation of why they are there such as pointing out some minor issues with EE in a few scenes or some minor DNR applied to some scenes which don't detract from the overall viewing experience. Category 2 titles are simply those that have been voted for and they could be voted off the list or onto the main list or added to the Category 3 list.

This ranking strategy makes no sense to me. I'd also like to see the title of the tread changed and the 'artistic intent' removed from the title. In my opinion, we should be focusing on how the the BD replicates the produced film. How a film turned out is not necessarily how the film makers intended.
post #177 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

I don't see this as being a Tier picture quality thread at all.

From the first post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

This isn't a demo material thread it's intended to highlight great looking film like titles.

It turned into a tier thread as soon as you added additional "categories". You just have different criteria. People will see the categories as rankings and treat your list as such. I'd recommend just having 1 "category" with the number of votes for/against and a 2nd list "removed for negative votes" list also with votes for/against. Then something either makes the cut or it doesn't as opposed to turning into another tier list.
post #178 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

Donnie Brasco had some notorious halos on most parts of the movie.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you'll have to provide proof of these "notorious halos". From what I've watched, the image is near devoid of any EE or DNR. If it's there, then I'm not seeing it at 90".


Reviews from Highdefdigest and dvdtown and dvd review all agree that this is a stunning transfer with almost no flaws (compared to it's source).

Hopefully Mulder takes this one into consideration.
post #179 of 1897
Patience people. Given time, we can eventually get the "gist" of the rankings. Keep nominating films.

On the other hand artifacts, EE and DNR is a demerit even if the transfer preserves the artistic content.
post #180 of 1897
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperron View Post

From the first post:


It turned into a tier thread as soon as you added additional "categories". You just have different criteria. People will see the categories as rankings and treat your list as such. I'd recommend just having 1 "category" with the number of votes for/against and a 2nd list "removed for negative votes" list also with votes for/against. Then something either makes the cut or it doesn't as opposed to turning into another tier list.

I have changed things slightly.....To stop confusion ( hopefully )

The Main List is where film titles will be placed if they have no major issues and retain the criteria for this thread.

Film Like But Issues With Transfer is what you can call your 2nd list and it is here where titles are placed if there are some minor issues with the transfer to Blu Ray. Titles on this thread fit the criteria for being here but will have some minor issues with slight EE or minor DNR ( nothing major )

The Category 2 list will be re-named The Nomination List and is there simply to reflect the fact people have made one vote for a film to be on this list.

There is not a rating attached to any films saying one title looks better than the other.....This list isn't based on any pre-conceived notion of great image quality and i re-worded the front page to reflect that.

Not easy getting things just right and i'm taking everything on board that people say and will try to adjust things so as not to make this simply a Tier picture quality thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Film Reference and Analysis