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 3

post #61 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

... and the voting should be done by people with trained eyes or Videophiles to make it look clean and tidy.


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
It's not fair!!!!
This is the AVS Forum damnit and I want my voice and untrained eyes counted for

Yeah it's probably a good idea.....
post #62 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

... and the voting should be done by people with trained eyes or Videophiles to make it look clean and tidy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexg75 View Post

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
It's not fair!!!!
This is the AVS Forum damnit and I want my voice and untrained eyes counted for

Yeah it's probably a good idea.....

The OP already stated that he didn't want this thread to be "elitist", but that equipment could be considered in weighing the opinions.

Nobody should be excluded.

What's a videophile anyway?
post #63 of 1897
Understood Rob.

Quote:


What's a videophile anyway?

Videophile is an individual who is definitely not like me.
I am just a normal person owning a budget HT gear but with high expectations.
post #64 of 1897
I have a question. What if the director got one chance at a shot. The aforementioned shot/scene/frame has Digital Noise from low light or grain in it. The director wants to use the shot, because it is one of a kind, BUT he doesn't like the DN/grain, but decides to leave it in anyway. Now it was NOT his intent for the shot to look that way, but he wants the shot. He feels it is important to the film. We know by what I have said the shot/scene is one of a kind, but has "noise" or grain, but again the director wants it left as is. It was directors intent to leave the scene in, but it was not his intent to have it look that way. How does anyone actually know what the director's intent really is without knowing him or having him specify as such what his intent is.

Now I don't know this to be a fact, but I bring up the above hypothetical for a reason. Apocalypto. I have it on BD. The opening scenes of the BD are very clear and detailed with some of the most stunning looking shots ever on a BD IMO. There are a couple of frames in the opening scenes that have obvious digital noise due to low light in the forest. What if the above hypothetical I mentioned is true in the case of Apocalypto. I am not saying it is or that I know it is, but what if?

I guess what I am really saying is without the director stating exactly that the look we are seeing is what he intended, how does anyone really know what any director intended if he doesn't say what he intended. Is it still considered director's intent if he puts in or leaves a million dollar, one of a kind shot the way it looks, even when he had no intention of it looking that way?
post #65 of 1897
Wait so shouldn't 28 Days Later pretty much be the king of this thread?
And all hand drawn title are perfect too then?

To be honest this thread seems broken without a director or DP's diary or something like that.
post #66 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

Mel Gibson was probably drunk during the filming of the "one of a kind shot"


LOL@! HAHAHAHAHA...

I still like the belligerent, drunk racist. He makes great movies and is a funny at times on Leno, etc.
post #67 of 1897
what do ya'll think of wall street?
post #68 of 1897
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowrage View Post

Wait so shouldn't 28 Days Later pretty much be the king of this thread?
And all hand drawn title are perfect too then?

To be honest this thread seems broken without a director or DP's diary or something like that.

I think 28 Days Later is a rare case....Something shot on SD format camera's then transferred to film.....It looks as good as it can be but it's up to everyone to give an opinion on whether you want it on this thread as at the moment it has one vote to be here. I assume you mean animated titles when you say hand drawn titles....I doubt they are all perfect as even animation can have DNR applied.

Regarding the director or DP's diary - Why should the thread seem broken....It's about perceived artistic intent and what we know about film and it's look and the stylistic choices that can be made to enhance a certain film look such as different lighting conditions and use of soft filter lenses or going for a gritty look and using film stock that adds more grain or a look that adds less ( I believe Art Sonneburn has the right idea and go read his comments earlier in the thread )

We might all get it wrong on a film title but the beauty of it is that everyone can give an opinion and state their reasons for it being here and over time a film can be moved down the list or up the list and comments regarding it's image quality can be added. The sky's the limit and the thread can be improved by getting everyone's input.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

I have a question. What if the director got one chance at a shot. The aforementioned shot/scene/frame has Digital Noise from low light or grain in it. The director wants to use the shot, because it is one of a kind, BUT he doesn't like the DN/grain, but decides to leave it in anyway. Now it was NOT his intent for the shot to look that way, but he wants the shot. He feels it is important to the film. We know by what I have said the shot/scene is one of a kind, but has "noise" or grain, but again the director wants it left as is. It was directors intent to leave the scene in, but it was not his intent to have it look that way. How does anyone actually know what the director's intent really is without knowing him or having him specify as such what his intent is.

Now I don't know this to be a fact, but I bring up the above hypothetical for a reason. Apocalypto. I have it on BD. The opening scenes of the BD are very clear and detailed with some of the most stunning looking shots ever on a BD IMO. There are a couple of frames in the opening scenes that have obvious digital noise due to low light in the forest. What if the above hypothetical I mentioned is true in the case of Apocalypto. I am not saying it is or that I know it is, but what if?

I guess what I am really saying is without the director stating exactly that the look we are seeing is what he intended, how does anyone really know what any director intended if he doesn't say what he intended. Is it still considered director's intent if he puts in or leaves a million dollar, one of a kind shot the way it looks, even when he had no intention of it looking that way?

There is no way we can fully know a directors intent......Regarding the noise due to low light in the forest well that's part of the image and should be retained and this film was shot using the Panasonic Genesis which is one of the very latest digital camera's. I think if something is there and captured on camera then we have to believe it's there for a reason or we have to accept it even if it was originally unwanted by the director because after all that's how it was shot and we can't go second guessing the intent or the thread goes out of control and arguments start......I'm not an expert though so if any others want to answer the question then go ahead.

Is this a vote for Apocalypto to be on the list ?

Regarding the votes to get onto the main list....I will leave it at two for now and if anyone has doubts that a specific film title should be on the main list then they can post here and let everyone know why and if several post the same impressions then it can be put into Category 3 with comments added.

Everyone's input is valued and if people want change then post here and i will try to add things to make the thread better.....If everyone wants three votes to get on the main list then please also post here and if there is demand for it then change will happen.
post #69 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

The OP already stated that he didn't want this thread to be "elitist", but that equipment could be considered in weighing the opinions.

Nobody should be excluded.

What's a videophile anyway?


I think I should be excluded and then re-included,then suspended and finally re-instated because I.....STILL......WATCH......VHS!!!!
and I watch my BR's on a 20 inch Magnavox T.V.
For the record,it is calibrated.......
post #70 of 1897
Second vote for Black Hawk Down and Devil's Rejects.

Equipment:

PS3 HDMI to Optoma HD70 (calibrated with all enhancements, ie. Brilliant Color, off)

90" DIY, Designer White Laminate screen.
post #71 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

Is it still considered director's intent if he puts in or leaves a million dollar, one of a kind shot the way it looks, even when he had no intention of it looking that way?

That's why "director's intent" is not really a useful standard.

But "accuracy" is. Through a combination of empirical judgements, inferences from other, similar material, statements by people involved in production/restoration, and knowledge of the field, I believe it's possible to make a fair judgement that a BD of a theatrical film looks the way it actually looked, or would actually look, in its intended context, which is a movie theater.

The visible presence of digital processing (EE and DNR most commonly) on a filmed source is the obvious example of something NOT looking like it would when projected.

I also want to add that it's important to try to be objective when making value judgements. And to understand that everything needs to be judged on its own merits.

Take "Blade Runner," for example. On the one hand, the "definitive" version has a lot of digital manipulation, including insertion/deletion of actual images. This version of the movie, although it had a limited theatrical run, is clearly intended primarily as a product for the home video market. So how do we judge it: as compared to the original theatrical film, show in theaters? Or as compared to made-for-video productions? Clearly, IMO, it has to simply be judged on its own merits.

I think the purpose of this thread should simply be to give potential buyers a sense of which discs come closest to accurately recreating the experience of seeing the work in its original context. Not whether it looks "good" or "bad," but whether such accuracy was successfully achieved or not.
post #72 of 1897
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post


I think the purpose of this thread should simply be to give potential buyers a sense of which discs come closest to accurately recreating the experience of seeing the work in its original context. Not whether it looks "good" or "bad," but whether such accuracy was successfully achieved or not.

I think thats well put and thats why i have not given any film a picture quality rating and prefer comments next to each film.
post #73 of 1897
Quote:


The OP already stated that he didn't want this thread to be "elitist", but that equipment could be considered in weighing the opinions.

Well, nobody with the ubiquitous 42/50" panel display should be making "evaluations" on a set like this. It's not elitism. A setup like this just can't reproduce the fine details like a proper large projection setup.

This is partly why we're in this situation to begin with, and why there is such a disparity in these reviews.
post #74 of 1897
My vote for number 1 based on artistic intent is - Cloverfield
The intent was to make it look like it wasn't shot on film. Or I still don't understand how this works.

28 Days Later should also be added. There Will be Blood is untouched and still looks beautiful.
post #75 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axatax View Post

Well, nobody with the ubiquitous 42/50" panel display should be making "evaluations" on a set like this. It's not elitism.

I'd have to disagree with you there.

Brandon
post #76 of 1897
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowrage View Post

My vote for number 1 based on artistic intent is - Cloverfield
The intent was to make it look like it wasn't shot on film. Or I still don't understand how this works.

28 Days Later should also be added. There Will be Blood is untouched and still looks beautiful.

You need to watch the films on Blu Ray then vote....If Cloverfield retains all the qualities you saw at the cinema on the Blu release then it's faithful to the artistic intent of the film makers as long as the studio hasn't removed all the grain or tried sharpening up a softer image...There is no number 1 or 2 on this thread there is a Category 1 where the best transfers from film to Blu Ray will be put and Category 3 is for those that don't quite make the grade because there is some issues such as edge enhancement in some scenes or DNR in some or macroblocking as an example.

This isn't the same as the eye candy thread as films with grain or artistic lighting conditions or even a softer look can still be placed in Category 1 if true to the source as in showing no signs of DNR tampering or added EE or macroblocking or any other annoying artifacts.
post #77 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axatax View Post

Well, nobody with the ubiquitous 42/50" panel display should be making "evaluations" on a set like this. It's not elitism. A setup like this just can't reproduce the fine details like a proper large projection setup...

Not elitism? It's the very definition of "elitism."

If this discussion is restricted to those few with projectors, that's fine. It would serve a purpose. But that restriction should be in the title.
post #78 of 1897
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfan424 View Post

Not elitism? It's the very definition of "elitism."

If this discussion is restricted to those few with projectors, that's fine. It would serve a purpose. But that restriction should be in the title.

There is no restriction....I dislike elitism...Anyone can post but remember anyone can also disagree and list their reasons why and that way we end up with a better list.
post #79 of 1897
lists like these are useful to me because when i buy blu-ray discs, i want a high quality transfer. it's difficult to tell from the tiny screenshots web reviewers put up plus the quality is different when films are in motion vs. stills.

i want to weed out some mistakes i've made like buying region A of Pan's Labyrinth. i tend to vote with my dollar!
post #80 of 1897
Live free die hard. Very true to original theatre quality..IMO.

post #81 of 1897
Is it just me or does anyone else have to highlight the text in Category 1 to read it?
post #82 of 1897
^^Yea, text is in white for some reason...
post #83 of 1897
Re: Excalibur. Wasn't there reported to be some framing issues with that?
post #84 of 1897
Man On Fire....Big time!
post #85 of 1897
Didn't get through the whole movie yet but I'll nominate The Professionals. Bet you folks will like this transfer!
post #86 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDPeeT View Post

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.

It has EE, no?
post #87 of 1897
Thread Starter 
I have made changes to reflect that Behind Enemy Lines has some mild edge enhancement and thus is now placed in Category 3 and Excalibur has also been placed in Category 3 for framing issues.

Live Free or Die Hard has been added to Category 2 as has Man On Fire and The Professionals....I am expecting The Professionals soon myself so will be able to give an opinion once i watch it.
post #88 of 1897
I have twin Dell 24" 2408WFP. I trust it more in evaluating PQ than my Epson 1080 UB or my Sony 40" XBR LCD. All are Spyder calibrated BTW.
post #89 of 1897
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

I have twin Dell 24" 2408WFP. I trust it more in evaluating PQ than my Epson 1080 UB or my Sony 40" XBR LCD. All are Spyder calibrated BTW.

I Look forward to some opinions from you on the list we currently have and what films you think are good enough to be here. You are welcome to post some of your fantastic screenshots too or links to them from your thread.

I have added Cloverfield to the main list as it now has two votes and added Rambo to the provisional list with one vote.

Remember that you can also negative a film and if there is a consensus that a film has EE or Excessive DNR applied to any scenes then it will be considered only for Category 3 as only the very best are placed in Category 1.
post #90 of 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

I think Behind Enemy Lines has some mild EE.

a Noob question, how can one determine if a BR-movie has varying degree of EE. what should one look for? any pics that can demonstrate?
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