Originally Posted by Xylon
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...