or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Baraka comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Baraka comparison *PIX* - Page 14

post #391 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grubert View Post

I just watched the region-B Blu-ray of Baraka released by Second Sight.

It looks bloody amazing.

Yes, I have noticed some slight halos around high-contrast edges, but does it deserve breaking out the pitchforks and torches? Hell no.

In fact there were many, many instances where I just stood in awe of what I saw in the movie, the beauty and the squalor, the faith and the cruelty. Bernini's columns in Saint Peter, the aboriginal rock paintings, the sea crashing through a tunnel in the rocks... Too many to mention.

And importantly - not a hint of banding/posterization. Remember the banding on the shot of the sun in Planet Earth? We have a similar shot here, and is totally smooth. And for me, banding takes me out of the movie more than halos. Because when I look at the sky, I never see gradients.

For once, I have to agree with Josh Z, who gave this a 4.5/5 video rating. Without the EE it would be 5/5.

+1

Right on the mark!!
post #392 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

And DNR on some scenes that almost approaches the level of some of the worst examples of detail scrubbing. Here are the screenshots from Patton



and Dark City



and Baraka




...

To use that shot of the children to demonstrate alleged "DNR" isn't fair. The shot from BARAKA that you've captured is a shot of children in a moving car, being photographed from another moving vehicle along side of them. The subjects themselves are not only moving, so is the camera, and for all intents and purposes it's a "stolen" shot. Given all the jumpy movement both on the vehicle being photographed as well as the vehicle carrying the camera in order to do the photographing, and the use of a long lens (see the out-of-focus background) to shoot this shot, keeping perfect focus is damn near impossible. Any softness in that shot is clearly due to that, not DNR. I'm with Mhafner on this. There is some visible ringing in the BD image, but DNR? No.

Vincent
post #393 of 618
You forgot about the downconversion from 8k.

Almost all the captures have visible waxiness going on though. It's just more obvious on shots like this and this than a wide landscape scene or on an iguana.
post #394 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

You forgot about the downconversion from 8k.

Almost all the captures have visible waxiness going on though. It's just more obvious on shots like this and this than a wide landscape scene or on an iguana.

Let me point out that Mhafner is probably the most vocal critic of DNR on this site, and he has said he doesn't think there is DNR in play here. I own the disc and I've watched it, and the shot in question is as I describe it- kids in a moving vehicle, being filmed by an obviously moving vehicle beside them with a long lens. I'm not arguing that this release is perfect or the Holy Grail- there is some noticeable ringing after all- but I will say I do not see DNR.

Neither does Mhafner. Do you think he's lying?

Vincent
post #395 of 618
Do I think he's lying? Are you serious?
post #396 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Do I think he's lying? Are you serious?

Yes. He said that while he sees flaws, he doesn't see DNR, yet you keep up with this "BARAKA has DNR" mantra.

So I ask again- do you think he's lying?

Or do you think he's just wrong?

Vincent
post #397 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

To use that shot of the children to demonstrate alleged "DNR" isn't fair. The shot from BARAKA that you've captured is a shot of children in a moving car, being photographed from another moving vehicle along side of them. The subjects themselves are not only moving, so is the camera, and for all intents and purposes it's a "stolen" shot. Given all the jumpy movement both on the vehicle being photographed as well as the vehicle carrying the camera in order to do the photographing, and the use of a long lens (see the out-of-focus background) to shoot this shot, keeping perfect focus is damn near impossible. Any softness in that shot is clearly due to that, not DNR. I'm with Mhafner on this. There is some visible ringing in the BD image, but DNR? No.

Vincent

I have to agree with Vincent on this point. I remember thinking the same thing regarding movement when this scene came up.
post #398 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Do I think he's lying? Are you serious?

I think he is Kram, if you don't answer his head may explode
post #399 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by rover2002 View Post

I think he is Kram, if you don't answer his head may explode

Hey, I'm not trying to remake SCANNERS here.

Vincent
post #400 of 618
I'm just glad I don't have Kram's display as it robs movies of film grain, or is it that my display has magic and adds film grain.

Sony, if you are listening give us a screen grab tool in the next PS3 firmware update. It would be nice for a lot of us blu-ray fans to be able to post some grabs. They have it in some games, I'd think it would be easier for a movie. Maybe legal issues don't allow it.
post #401 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

Yes. He said that while he sees flaws, he doesn't see DNR, yet you keep up with this "BARAKA has DNR" mantra.

So I ask again- do you think he's lying?

Or do you think he's just wrong?

You lost me. So Mhafner is like the chief of DNR police? We can't all do our own investigations and conclusions?

What about Xylon then? Do you think Xylon is purposively picking out certain shots to push the "Baraka has DNR" mantra? If so, why would he do that? What about others that see it? Who's paying them off? Where's my check?
post #402 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

You lost me. So Mhafner is like the chief of DNR police? We can't all do our own investigations and conclusions?

What about Xylon then? Do you think Xylon is purposively picking out certain shots to push the "Baraka has DNR" mantra? If so, why would he do that? What about others that see it? Who's paying them off? Where's my check?

In Xylon's case, I simply think he's mistaken regarding DNR on this title. I never made accusations of folks being paid off, and I have no idea where you got that from.

As for Mhafner, yes, I think when it comes to calling out titles for DNR, he could easily be crowned "the police" around these parts. He's probably the single most astute member of this site when it comes to calling out DNR, and he has said based on his viewing of the BARAKA BD that while it has PQ issues, he doesn't think DNR is one of them.

As for others- like yourself- doing "investigations" and "making conclusions"- just what are you using to make your "investigation", Kram? Are you viewing the actual BD- as Mhafner did- or basing your constant claims of "DNR" on screenshots alone?

Vincent
post #403 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

To use that shot of the children to demonstrate alleged "DNR" isn't fair. The shot from BARAKA that you've captured is a shot of children in a moving car, being photographed from another moving vehicle along side of them. The subjects themselves are not only moving, so is the camera, and for all intents and purposes it's a "stolen" shot. Given all the jumpy movement both on the vehicle being photographed as well as the vehicle carrying the camera in order to do the photographing, and the use of a long lens (see the out-of-focus background) to shoot this shot, keeping perfect focus is damn near impossible. Any softness in that shot is clearly due to that, not DNR. I'm with Mhafner on this. There is some visible ringing in the BD image, but DNR? No.

Vincent

The kids are not moving in that shot relative to the camera.
Personally I'm not sold on the idea that this movie doesn't use DNR in a few scenes, but it's kind of hard to tell without a non-DNR'd frame of reference when it's not a painfully obvious instance like Patton. Maybe those kids just have really smooth skin
post #404 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

The kids are not moving in that shot relative to the camera.
Personally I'm not sold on the idea that this movie doesn't use DNR in a few scenes, but it's kind of hard to tell without a non-DNR'd frame of reference when it's not a painfully obvious instance like Patton. Maybe those kids just have really smooth skin

Yes, they are. They are in a moving car and moving slightly side to side and even up and down. There's lots of movement in that shot, or both camera slightly bouncing and the kids moving along with the car as it bounces slightly along the street.

And regarding your second point, yes they are kids, and being kids, they would have smoother skin than adults.

Vincent
post #405 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

In Xylon's case, I simply think he's mistaken regarding DNR on this title. I never made accusations of folks being paid off, and I have no idea where you got that from.



How do you think Xylon is mistaking something else for DNR? Has he done that before?
post #406 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

Yes, they are. They are in a moving car and moving slightly side to side and even up and down. There's lots of movement in that shot, or both camera slightly bouncing and the kids moving along with the car as it bounces slightly along the street.

And regarding your second point, yes they are kids, and being kids, they would have smoother skin than adults.

Vincent

Also another thing is that when you are shooting on film in "slow motion", you "overcrank" the camera. For 1/2 speed, you shoot at 48 fps. For 1/4 speed, you shoot at 96fps. When you do this, you have to open the iris more for light. That reduces depth of field which makes "critical focus" much more tricky and smaller. That plus a long lens...?

(sorry, NYU film school days flashback...)
post #407 of 618
My view concerning Baraka and DNR is as follows:
- I see no typical artifacts of DNR in this transfer.
- I see smoothness and usually a lack of grain, but that's normal for well exposed 65mm daylight shots filtered down to 1080p. The grain is too fine to make the HD noisy.
- Smoothness can be caused by several other factors in addition to DNR, they have to be excluded first before DNR can be claimed if smoothness is all evidence you got.
- DNR can be applied from very subtly to very strong. I can not claim with certainty that zero DNR was used in all shots. But IMHO this transfer does not have a DNR problem and I have no reason to doubt the insider who posted here and said no DNR was applied.

The transfer has a sharpening problem which is quite evident.
post #408 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

My view concerning Baraka and DNR is as follows:
- I see no typical artifacts of DNR in this transfer.
- I see smoothness and usually a lack of grain, but that's normal for well exposed 65mm daylight shots filtered down to 1080p. The grain is too fine to make the HD noisy.
- Smoothness can be caused by several other factors in addition to DNR, they have to be excluded first before DNR can be claimed if smoothness is all evidence you got.
- DNR can be applied from very subtly to very strong. I can not claim with certainty that zero DNR was used in all shots. But IMHO this transfer does not have a DNR problem and I have no reason to doubt the insider who posted here and said no DNR was applied.

The transfer has a sharpening problem which is quite evident.

100% agreed - as long as there are no DNR artefacts the softness alone is no proof. I think the sharpening artefacts are not really a point of debate anymore and that might be all we can and should agree on.

Unless somebody can produce a 2k scan of a film frame or two I don't think much new light will be shed on the issue of the softness/smoothness in certain scenes so I will leave it at that.
post #409 of 618
Time has come for Pioneer to request Cinram to commence production of 500GB Blu-rays which might hold beyond 2K.

Gimme a >2K HDTV please.
post #410 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Also another thing is that when you are shooting on film in "slow motion", you "overcrank" the camera. For 1/2 speed, you shoot at 48 fps. For 1/4 speed, you shoot at 96fps. When you do this, you have to open the iris more for light. That reduces depth of field which makes "critical focus" much more tricky and smaller. That plus a long lens...?

(sorry, NYU film school days flashback...)

Now Dave, where do you get off bringing the technical aspects of filming into this discussion? What makes you think that things like film speed, aperture size, focal length, lense size, lighting conditions etc etc have ANYTHING to do at all with the quality of image that will come out of the camera?!? Kram has clearly let us know that all images should have identical characteristics regardless of any of that techno mumbo jumbo...
post #411 of 618
Thread Starter 
Hello, I haven't abandoned this thread just too busy and not enough time.



If you don't see the PQ issues I observed that's fine. If it's caused by the downconversion from 8K to 2k or its applied to fix some "problematic" scenes (watch Baraka restoration) or its supposed to "look that way". What matters is the final product. I am not here to convince any of you.

Like any threads I started when I praise a transfer no one is up and arms about it and usually use my "screenshots" to prove some point. And when I call a Blu-ray transfer a disappointment and inferior to the dead format my "screenshots" are now "unreliable" and movies should be watched in "motion". Nevermind the fact that I always watch them before posting them. Do you honestly think the first thing I do is pop in the disc and randomly capture still images? Do some of you have any idea the whole process of getting a comparison thread *PIX* up?

So if ----insert title----- looks good enough for you, who am I to tell you otherwise? I don't know your viewing setup, calibration quality or your knowledge in properly assessing film quality.
post #412 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugnax555 View Post

Now Dave, where do you get off bringing the technical aspects of filming into this discussion? What makes you think that things like film speed, aperture size, focal length, lense size, lighting conditions etc etc have ANYTHING to do at all with the quality of image that will come out of the camera?!? Kram has clearly let us know that all images should have identical characteristics regardless of any of that techno mumbo jumbo...

Please don't bring up any relevent facts. Just let them be happy with what ever they see, as nothing will change their minds on that.
post #413 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

My view concerning Baraka and DNR is as follows:
- I see no typical artifacts of DNR in this transfer.
- I see smoothness and usually a lack of grain, but that's normal for well exposed 65mm daylight shots filtered down to 1080p. The grain is too fine to make the HD noisy.
- Smoothness can be caused by several other factors in addition to DNR, they have to be excluded first before DNR can be claimed if smoothness is all evidence you got.
- DNR can be applied from very subtly to very strong. I can not claim with certainty that zero DNR was used in all shots. But IMHO this transfer does not have a DNR problem and I have no reason to doubt the insider who posted here and said no DNR was applied.

The transfer has a sharpening problem which is quite evident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

100% agreed - as long as there are no DNR artefacts the softness alone is no proof. I think the sharpening artefacts are not really a point of debate anymore and that might be all we can and should agree on.

Unless somebody can produce a 2k scan of a film frame or two I don't think much new light will be shed on the issue of the softness/smoothness in certain scenes so I will leave it at that.

For what it's worth, I agree with these points as well.
post #414 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser View Post

During De-Graining (in most tools) the grain texture is sampled and through various algorythm methods rendered in either a smaller size of the grain or re-rendered at lower frequency. Spatial median filters are often used in this environment, the problem is that if "overdone" the image looks practically grain free and dull. Some cleanup tools, by the way, use a similar method.

During De-Noising the whole image is being sampled for anything that is in the high frequency range (thus also affecting, depending on the intensity, more or less the sharpness and detail) and rather indiscriminately "wiped clean". The effect, however, grows with intensity to a clearly visible dither, leaving distracting patterns (similar to dithers in PS and other software for GIF file reduction) behind. What's left is then a flat image with little depth and very simplified colors and a demolished texture.

Many software and hardware solutions offer separate de-graining and de-noising plug-ins, which make the choise re: OMEN and POTAs the more interesting.

So HDNet's iamge processing qualifies as De-noising? I noticed when comparing a HDnet broadcast to the disc version, the hdnet version isn't lacking any grain. Everything just looks smuggy and blurry during movement, like a ghosting effect that trails moving object. I still don't get why they apply it, it doesn't remove any grain or anything, everything just looks worse. here's an example: http://www.sendspace.com/file/mgw6be
post #415 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

If you don't see the PQ issues I observed that's fine. If it's caused by the downconversion from 8K to 2k or its applied to fix some "problematic" scenes (watch Baraka restoration) or its supposed to "look that way". What matters is the final product. I am not here to convince any of you.

...agreed, but (like the bitrate meter on the PS3, or a slavish love of lossless audio regardless of the quality/condition of the master) there are unintended consequences of all of your hard work.

There's been an explosion of "DNR" frenzy on these boards, brought about by the justifiable desire for as near-to-perfection as we can get out of an HD source playable at home. I think Vincent's point above is an excellent one - namely, contextualizing the shot, and suggesting that the condition (a soft shot) need NOT speak to after-the-fact, digital manipulation, but instead may be a minor blemmish due to the production of the film itself.

Let's not forget the two competing things going on here: DNR essentially produces a -softer- image, while EE produces a -sharper- image... In other words, a mild amount of EE might have, in fact, improved the aparent softness of the "Kids on Car" pic during motion, but would have had the tradeoff of -additional- artifacting. This balance is why compression is an art more so than a science, and specs, bitrates, and so on are near meaningless compared to the skills of dedicated people making the best possible transfer for home use.

Xylon, I'm not for a milisecond suggesting that that subtlety is lost on you. I will submit that there are many, many who look at these threads as a form of critical review, and base their buying decisions about what a given set of screen shots look like. Given that there are debates about -why- a particular shot looks the way it does, crying "DNR!" without regard to the source/shooting conditions/etc. is disengenuous at best, ignorant at worst.

Planet Earth was a fine example of this kind of negative, hyperbolic, knee-jerk reactions. It looked like it -should- be perfect (ideally), then some complained that shots of the Polar Bears "looked fuzzy and out of focus", suggesting a poor transfer. Little regard for the fact that the damn shot was taken from =100s= of meters away does little for those wanting their theatres to be nothing more than show-offs for their friends.

So, with respect to the work you do and the help you provide to the forum, I suggest, humbly, that in the presentation of your screen shots that the discussion remain open about whether what we're seeing is the result of manipulation in post, that screen shots are merely a tool (and *often a misleading one) in evaluating a disc.

I do worry that there is an entire group that wants nothing but Wall-E, Crank, etc., while overinflating the "faults" of photochemical-sourced cinema to the point where the studios feel a -need- to "clean up" the issues. Being against excessive DNR goes a long way to preventing the glossy, unnatural capture of film in favour of a transfer that does justice to the source. However, it can just as easy become dogmatic, that the very elements we wished preserved may not stand up to frame-by-frame scrutiny the way that a CGI or HD video source may.

Some context for the shots that are captured, some humilty in elucidation, and some appreciation for the fact that HD video at home is a complicated balance of competing compromises would I think to wonders to elevate the tenor of some of the discussion here at AVS.

Plus, for the love of God, let's take the time not forget to evaluate the film in its entirety, appreciating the film for better or for worse =without= regard to audio or picture quality.

__________________

*How many are viewing these screen shots on calibrated computer monitors? CRT or LCD? Anyone reading AVS using their Projector? How many even take a moment =realize= you are scaling the images so that DVD, 720 and 1080 sources are the same size onscreen? And so on...




___________________
post #416 of 618
I almost hate to bring this up, as I don't want to cause any more controversy than there already is. But I haven't seen this mentioned yet... there does seem to be a difference between Xylon's screen caps of some of the images, and those from the DVD beaver review:

Xylon:


DVD Beaver:


The image wouldn't post inline directly from DVD Beaver, so I had to download it to my web space. But I didn't edit it, just copied it. You can compare directly off their site at http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20blu-ray1.jpg.

If you overlay the two images and switch back and forth, you can see differences. Obviously, these aren't from the exact same timeslice, so it's not a fair comparison. But I think it does show that there can be differences due to the final image compression, etc. A screen cap might not always tell the complete picture. Xylon's should be the accurate capture, as he is using .png files. But to my eyes, the beaver shot seems to have more detail. It can all just be in the timing, however, as one frame may have compressed better than the other.

And yes, the humorous pun was intentional to hopefully diffuse negative reactions.
post #417 of 618
It could be due to different renderes, different frames, something else or nost probably a combination of factors

I usually compare the caps to other movies by him and assuming the techniques used are constant I think this gives a good frame of reference.

BTW: The controvery is not that big I think, but people like to blow things out of proportion. What is important is that areas that definitely should have been better are identified to get better results for future transfers and I think this has been accomplished.
post #418 of 618
Good post Darin. True, the individual screen does not tell the complete or accurate picture quite often. That's why it is important to view the movie in motion to get an idea of the films PQ. In general I've noticed if I advance frame by frame I can pick a frame with lower detail or higher detail with it being pretty much the same shot, simply by advancing 1 or 2 frames. Basically I think both frames can accurate even using the same compression, etc.
post #419 of 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkshark View Post

...agreed, but (like the bitrate meter on the PS3, or a slavish love of lossless audio regardless of the quality/condition of the master) there are unintended consequences of all of your hard work.

There's been an explosion of "DNR" frenzy on these boards, brought about by the justifiable desire for as near-to-perfection as we can get out of an HD source playable at home. I think Vincent's point above is an excellent one - namely, contextualizing the shot, and suggesting that the condition (a soft shot) need NOT speak to after-the-fact, digital manipulation, but instead may be a minor blemmish due to the production of the film itself.

Let's not forget the two competing things going on here: DNR essentially produces a -softer- image, while EE produces a -sharper- image... In other words, a mild amount of EE might have, in fact, improved the aparent softness of the "Kids on Car" pic during motion, but would have had the tradeoff of -additional- artifacting. This balance is why compression is an art more so than a science, and specs, bitrates, and so on are near meaningless compared to the skills of dedicated people making the best possible transfer for home use.

Xylon, I'm not for a milisecond suggesting that that subtlety is lost on you. I will submit that there are many, many who look at these threads as a form of critical review, and base their buying decisions about what a given set of screen shots look like. Given that there are debates about -why- a particular shot looks the way it does, crying "DNR!" without regard to the source/shooting conditions/etc. is disengenuous at best, ignorant at worst.

Planet Earth was a fine example of this kind of negative, hyperbolic, knee-jerk reactions. It looked like it -should- be perfect (ideally), then some complained that shots of the Polar Bears "looked fuzzy and out of focus", suggesting a poor transfer. Little regard for the fact that the damn shot was taken from =100s= of meters away does little for those wanting their theatres to be nothing more than show-offs for their friends.

So, with respect to the work you do and the help you provide to the forum, I suggest, humbly, that in the presentation of your screen shots that the discussion remain open about whether what we're seeing is the result of manipulation in post, that screen shots are merely a tool (and *often a misleading one) in evaluating a disc.

I do worry that there is an entire group that wants nothing but Wall-E, Crank, etc., while overinflating the "faults" of photochemical-sourced cinema to the point where the studios feel a -need- to "clean up" the issues. Being against excessive DNR goes a long way to preventing the glossy, unnatural capture of film in favour of a transfer that does justice to the source. However, it can just as easy become dogmatic, that the very elements we wished preserved may not stand up to frame-by-frame scrutiny the way that a CGI or HD video source may.

Some context for the shots that are captured, some humilty in elucidation, and some appreciation for the fact that HD video at home is a complicated balance of competing compromises would I think to wonders to elevate the tenor of some of the discussion here at AVS.

Plus, for the love of God, let's take the time not forget to evaluate the film in its entirety, appreciating the film for better or for worse =without= regard to audio or picture quality.

__________________

*How many are viewing these screen shots on calibrated computer monitors? CRT or LCD? Anyone reading AVS using their Projector? How many even take a moment =realize= you are scaling the images so that DVD, 720 and 1080 sources are the same size onscreen? And so on...




___________________


This is an excellent post. I strongly believe that keeping things in perspective is important, and the thoughts expressed above definitely encourage that kind of thinking.
post #420 of 618
Man, some of you guys are crazy. This is the best live action blu-ray I've ever seen. It blew my mind!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Baraka comparison *PIX*