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 2

post #31 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Edge Enhancement does not add detail, so I am not sure what the point is about 70mm being a lot sharper or more detailed than what most people are accustomed to.

Sharper???

Edge enhancement is used to make the image look sharper. How does one presume to know what was there and what was erroneously applied to an image that is inherently sharper and more detailed by deafult?
post #32 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by history2b View Post

Sharper???

Edge enhancement is used to make the image look sharper. How does one presume to know what was there and what was erroneously applied to an image that is inherently sharper and more detailed by deafult?

EE is not that difficult to see, as it generally adds ugly outlines to edges.
post #33 of 1897
but I am pointing out that 70mm will have sharper anyway. I'm not so sure its as simple as saying it was too much EE.
post #34 of 1897
The only way this thread can be useful is to measure how faithful each Blu-ray is to the original source material. My reference would be a high quality print of the movie properly projected early in the movie's theatrical run or even better what the director directly states about his intended look for the film. Some films on Blu-ray will never look that great even if they are 100% faithful and accurate to the master because of decisions(some artistic and some practical) made by the various creative staff behind a film(director, cinematographer, etc). Obviously things like DNR, EE, wrong color timings, poor current master quality, and poor compression jobs could all affect how faithful a BD is to the original film source though.
post #35 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by history2b View Post

but I am pointing out that 70mm will have sharper anyway. I'm not so sure its as simple as saying it was too much EE.

If I am understanding the point that you are trying to make, which is that film shot on 65mm will generally be more detailed and sharper and therefor doesn't require EE, then I certainly agree.
post #36 of 1897
Do we actually know if any 70mm films were transferred FROM 70mm and not a 35mm print from downstream? I haven't seen the "2001" BD but the screencaps look worse than I'd expect.
post #37 of 1897
It's pretty easy to tell if excessive DNR has been applied to a BD release. I'm pretty sure that we all all aware of the fact that human skin has pores and, in most cases, blemishes. Humans also have facial hair (eyelashes, eybrows, etc).

When you see a closeup, do you see these details or does the face look waxy with no detail in the eyebrows or individual strands of hair? You should be able to see the individual eyebrow hairs, for example.

The other criteria is that there should be a grain structure to the image. The grain might be fine as in "2001" or "Grand Prix", it might be coarser as in Clockwork Orange or "Dirty Dozen". It may increase dramatically during effects or process shots such as fades or rear projection or titles. The grain may increase dramatically in darker scenes and diminish in brightly lit outdoor scenes. This is the nature of film and it is the way the film looked in the theater and is no way indicative of a bad transfer.

If a title fails all these tests and did not originate on video, you can be pretty sure that you are seeing the results of excessive DNR.

Now comes the tricky part: Was that DNR applied during the creation of the DI (digital intermediate) in which case the film prints are going to have the same issues (not likely, at least not to the level we see in "Patton" and "The Longest Day" or was it applied somewhere in the video transfer and mastering process?

In the case of older films, there was no DI because the process didn't exist back then. So for films like "Patton" and the "The Longest Day", it must have been applied in the video transfer / mastering process.

A disclaimer:

Some films have been shot with filters on the camera to produce a soft, hazy, or dreamy effect. This should not be confused with DNR. The key here is a soft looking image without a lot of detail THAT STILL CONTAINS A VISIBLE GRAIN STRUCTURE. A prime example of this would be "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid".

I hope this will help the more non-technical out there to understand how to evaluate an HD release for excessive DNR.

Vern
post #38 of 1897
Thanks Vern ! Grain is film, whether it be extremely fine or not it still exists.

With The Longest Day I was just surprised at the lack of detail. Since black and white films even in SD often look very very good, in respect to fine detail, I was ready for a treat with The Longest Day in BD that never happened.

Art
post #39 of 1897
You can add House of 1000 corpses to the list. Crappy movie, but absolutely stunning transfer (and with certain scenes, even demo material).

There is a little bit of EE here and there, but no DNR to speak of.
post #40 of 1897
I've been beating the drum for Master & Commander since day one when I viewed it. Not sure I could really ask for anything more.
post #41 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebronze View Post

Black Hawk Down and Casino Royale both look excellent. But alot of my friends think they are too grainy...I happen to like the grain, gives it a gritty quality.

Actually you friends can be correct (In case of BHD)

When you try a build up a grainy image with blocks, the blocks can very enhance the grain.

Since I dont have access to the source, its hard to tell if thats the case here.
post #42 of 1897
Of this recent batch of military releases, The Sand Pebbles stands out for its filmlike authenticity.
post #43 of 1897
The thread will eventually get buried without a sticky.
post #44 of 1897
The Road Warrior
Excalibur
Dog Day Afternoon
post #45 of 1897
I believe ,although this thread will have a bit of a learning curve and require some time to build a consensus, we can all agree on a few things which have made us come here instead of the Tier (demo material) thread.

* We want BD to look like film not video
* Simply stylized looks be it soft focus, intentional crushing of blacks or applied grain for example are not, in and of themselves, reasons to reduce a films rating.
* Obvious artifacts like blocking,DNR and edge enhancement should reduce the rating since these are not part of film and add the video look.
* Things like pop,3D and long depth of field are not requirements for high ranking since again these are not requisites for a great film presentation although they may occur in a great film presentation.

I believe that much of the above is easy to agree on.

Art
post #46 of 1897
For getting on the list you may want to do what we did with the SD DVD reference list (same criteria). It takes 2 "votes" to make the list and 3 negative votes can get it removed. No matter how you slice it, mis-calibrated displays and size challenged displays can influence what is seen or not seen. And if there are "flaws", timestamps would be nice so others can verify and/or perhaps learn something.

larry
post #47 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I believe ,although this thread will have a bit of a learning curve and require some time to build a consensus, we can all agree on a few things which have made us come here instead of the Tier (demo material) thread.

* We want BD to look like film not video
* Simply stylized looks be it soft focus, intentional crushing of blacks or applied grain for example are not, in and of themselves, reasons to reduce a films rating.
* Obvious artifacts like blocking,DNR and edge enhancement should reduce the rating since these are not part of film and add the video look.
* Things like pop,3D and long depth of field are not requirements for high ranking since again these are not requisites for a great film presentation although they may occur in a great film presentation.

I believe that much of the above is easy to agree on.

Art

Agree with everything 'cept the bolded. Wouldn't it be best to say, "We want film to look like film, and video to look like video; on the BD format"?

Also, Rambo and Cloverfield should make this list. Both are presented on the BD format just as they were in theaters (the first being kinda soft and slightly grainy, while the latter is sharper and has the digital camera look to it).
post #48 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinggroin View Post

Agree with everything 'cept the bolded. Wouldn't it be best to say, "We want film to look like film, and video to look like video; on the BD format"?

Also, Rambo and Cloverfield should make this list. Both are presented on the BD format just as they were in theaters (the first being kinda soft and slightly grainy, while the latter is sharper and has the digital camera look to it).

Agreed. I thought the intent of blu-ray and this thread is to be as representative of the master as possible.
post #49 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugg77 View Post

Agreed. I thought the intent of blu-ray and this thread is to be as representative of the master as possible.

I'm sure it is. I think Art just fumbled his words (my apologies if he didn't).
post #50 of 1897
is this list region A only? example is the EU version of Pan's Labyrinth has no DNR whereas the US region A version does.
post #51 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediFonger View Post

is this list region A only? example is the EU version of Pan's Labyrinth has no DNR whereas the US region A version does.


I don't see why we couldn't add movies from other regions so long as it's noted (lke in the case of Pan's).
post #52 of 1897
I'll nominate Unbreakable.
post #53 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinggroin View Post

Agree with everything 'cept the bolded. Wouldn't it be best to say, "We want film to look like film, and video to look like video; on the BD format"?

Also, Rambo and Cloverfield should make this list. Both are presented on the BD format just as they were in theaters (the first being kinda soft and slightly grainy, while the latter is sharper and has the digital camera look to it).

I agree my intent in that point was to convey that we don't need every film to look like the NBA in HD, nothing more.

Art
post #54 of 1897
The Fifth Element (Remastered MPEG-4 AVC of course)

Great transfer, very film-like presentation.

post #55 of 1897
i vote for
Laberinto del fauno, El (2006)


US is DNR but the EU version is excellent!
post #56 of 1897
maybe have participants list their screen size and seating distance as in my signature.
post #57 of 1897
I am eagerly awaiting the BR releases of Michael Mann's two recent titles, "Collateral" and "Miami Vice". Both were shot mostly with video HD cameras in low light, and Mann is on record stating that he thought the noise adds to the gritty tone of the films.

I saw both titles in DLP cinema, so I'm pretty sure I know what they're supposed to look like. I know the DVDs have far less noise than the HD on even overcompressed HBO... I hope the BR transfers have the original look to them.

A few years back, I knew a guy who worked at Eastman Kodak. A PhD, he wrote the tools that are used during the DI process to reduce the noise and/or film grain in a scan/ingest. He said that the directors favored his solution because it was possible for them to easily retain their artistic intent while still reducing noise in the scans (the knobs were there and easy to adjust). Certainly, some of the older ingests and DVD transfers probably needed heavy-handed reduction in order to reduce mosquito noise in constrained storage conditions.
post #58 of 1897
I'll vote for Behind Enemy Lines, I just bought it yesterday, and it has a very grainy look (in a good way). There are a few scenes that I would call "Reference quality", with beautiful grain structure and plenty of detail.
post #59 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I believe ,although this thread will have a bit of a learning curve and require some time to build a consensus, we can all agree on a few things which have made us come here instead of the Tier (demo material) thread.

* We want BD to look like film not video
* Simply stylized looks be it soft focus, intentional crushing of blacks or applied grain for example are not, in and of themselves, reasons to reduce a films rating.
* Obvious artifacts like blocking,DNR and edge enhancement should reduce the rating since these are not part of film and add the video look.
* Things like pop,3D and long depth of field are not requirements for high ranking since again these are not requisites for a great film presentation although they may occur in a great film presentation.

I believe that much of the above is easy to agree on.

Art

Well said, Art. I think this post does a good job of separating what this thread is about vs. what the Tier thread is about. Well done!

Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

For getting on the list you may want to do what we did with the SD DVD reference list (same criteria). It takes 2 "votes" to make the list and 3 negative votes can get it removed. No matter how you slice it, mis-calibrated displays and size challenged displays can influence what is seen or not seen. And if there are "flaws", timestamps would be nice so others can verify and/or perhaps learn something.

larry

I definitely agree with this in principal, but the number of votes required to make the list should be discussed. I would think we would want at least 3 votes.
post #60 of 1897
... and the voting should be done by people with trained eyes or Videophiles to make it look clean and tidy.
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