or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › "The Dark Knight" PQ issues.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"The Dark Knight" PQ issues. - Page 36  

post #1051 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

The trick is to know which people see what you see and judge it as you do. Their opinion is relevant (to you). The others' opinion is not. That's independent of right or wrong, fact or fiction. Of course the EE on this disc is fact, but a fact perceived differently by different people.

Well said! I agree with this premise.
post #1052 of 1074
More screencaps are popping up in Xylon's thread.
post #1053 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

Thanks for the kind words - I appreciate that with a few exceptions this thread has come back on track after a few pages of bickering and now we can get back to discuss things in a more civilized manner.

I do not judge original photography which can be soft and fuzzy or have bad CGI. But I do expect that this photography is delivered to us, warts and all, with a competent transfer.
By my standards this can be said of both Iron Man and Indy IV and not of TDK.

Thanks Oliver for your good response to my post. The point you make (highlighted above) is what I wasn't understanding. It's the same point that 42041 made in an earlier post regarding the difference between "source flaws" and "transfer flaws." You obviously want to see a transfer that duplicates the film, even if it contains many "source flaws." I get it now...and I truly respect the desire you (and others) have.

Having said that, the main problem I had with some who posted on the Baraka comparison *PIX* thread was that they were unwilling to admit that Baraka had some redeeming qualities (along with the post-processing flaws). In other words, they condemned the whole transfer instead of acknowledging the good along with the bad.
post #1054 of 1074
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by djoberg View Post

In other words, they condemned the whole transfer instead of acknowledging the good along with the bad.

Human nature
We know the quality the HD platform can deliver. The marketing promoting HD promises that, even on the cover and intro of every BD sold.
This is why we rarely see large threads about those transfers that are tier 0.
With Baraka if there was nothing wrong with it there would be nothing to talk about.
In sales it is those customers you never hear back from that you know you have done your job well
post #1055 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by muterobert View Post

I have to say that the confidence in my regular HD review sites has been knocked recently.

I had always felt that way, even before this TDK issue surfaced.
post #1056 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by muterobert View Post

I have to say that the confidence in my regular HD review sites has been knocked recently. HighDefDigest in particular was my bible for this sort of thing, I'm now beginning to wonder.

Patton pretty much made people realize how useless most review sites are if you want an accurate review. Even the official AVS reviewer failed on Patton. At this point the only reliable reviews are those from certain members here like Alan or actually looking at screenshots yourself. Discs with excessive DNR and EE get rave reviews just about everywhere online. Hopefully in a couple years after the "wow" factor of high def wears off, the rose colored glasses that most reviewers seem to be wearing will come off.
post #1057 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperron View Post

Patton pretty much made people realize how useless most review sites are if you want an accurate review. Even the official AVS reviewer failed on Patton. At this point the only reliable reviews are those from certain members here like Alan or actually looking at screenshots yourself. Discs with excessive DNR and EE get rave reviews just about everywhere online. Hopefully in a couple years after the "wow" factor of high def wears off, the rose colored glasses that most reviewers seem to be wearing will come off.

+1 well said.
post #1058 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperron View Post

Patton pretty much made people realize how useless most review sites are if you want an accurate review. Even the official AVS reviewer failed on Patton. At this point the only reliable reviews are those from certain members here like Alan or actually looking at screenshots yourself. Discs with excessive DNR and EE get rave reviews just about everywhere online. Hopefully in a couple years after the "wow" factor of high def wears off, the rose colored glasses that most reviewers seem to be wearing will come off.

So are you saying that TDK has excessive DNR and EE?
post #1059 of 1074
I think that the posts about Iron Man are even more controversial than the TDK posts, because I already have the Iron Man Blu Ray, and I actually thought I had purchased a pirated version, because the picture was so grainy, and looked like upscaled SD. Only the menu looked HD. But with the plain grey cover I thought "This must be a pirate version." I couldn't concentrate on the movie at all, I kept calibrating my TV without success. So if I had a choice between grain, and halos, I would choose halos. It's like a choice between sand all over your screen, or the occasional spider web on the screen. I choose the spider web as it is 10% coverage, and the sand is everywhere I look.
post #1060 of 1074
If you are not aware yet Pincho, all that 'nasty' grain is what captured the picture in the first place and when it is improperly removed, read always, it removes all that nice HD detail. -That you are supposedly paying extra for.
Now when grain is still somewhat present and has had lots of sharpening, aka halos/EE, added that makes it noisy and annoying. -What you are seeing on TDK BR disc. ;{

As some have compared to before, the grain issue is like P&S vs Widescreen of DVD. Just because the masses didn't like those 'annoying' black bars at first did not mean the studios needed to cater to the lowest common denominator. Thankfully they did make widescreen presentation standard and those DVDs retain the original artistic intent as well looking better on HDTVs.

Best Regards
KvE
post #1061 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

I think that the posts about Iron Man are even more controversial than the TDK posts, because I already have the Iron Man Blu Ray, and I actually thought I had purchased a pirated version, because the picture was so grainy, and looked like upscaled SD. Only the menu looked HD. But with the plain grey cover I thought "This must be a pirate version." I couldn't concentrate on the movie at all, I kept calibrating my TV without success. So if I had a choice between grain, and halos, I would choose halos. It's like a choice between sand all over your screen, or the occasional spider web on the screen. I choose the spider web as it is 10% coverage, and the sand is everywhere I look.

If Iron Man on BD looks like upscaled DVD to you, then you definitely have issues with your set-up.
post #1062 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

If Iron Man on BD looks like upscaled DVD to you, then you definitely have issues with your set-up.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree on this one.
post #1063 of 1074
Well anyhow, I think know how to get rid of grain without any loss of quality, and to get all of the missing information back.

Instead of fixing images with DNR, or any of the common methods, you could try getting the information back from the next frame of the movie instead. The grain should have moved on the second frame, so you just have to allow for panning, so long as the scene has not changed, so you do this on a scene by scene cut. You search for the palette on a line by line scan, and you find the grain by measuring the drop in brightness intensity of each pixel. That should work pretty well.. even a single pixel white spot in the eye of a person's iris can be replaced using this method.
post #1064 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

Well anyhow, I think know how to get rid of grain without any loss of quality, and to get all of the missing information back.

Instead of fixing images with DNR, or any of the common methods, you could try getting the information back from the next frame of the movie instead. The grain should have moved on the second frame, so you just have to allow for panning, so long as the scene has not changed, so you do this on a scene by scene cut. You search for the palette on a line by line scan, and you find the grain by measuring the drop in brightness intensity of each pixel. That should work pretty well.. even a single pixel white spot in the eye of a person's iris can be replaced using this method.

I want to watch film not high definition video which is what you seem to proposing with your idea. Film has grain and you know what it's beautiful and not the ugly mess you are seeing....Don't you think that what you are saying has not already been done and is in fact part of the current DNR process at some studio's...They fail time and time again....Even if they could succeed why would anyone want a high definition video version of their favorite film when they could have an HD film version of their favorite film ?

Here's another idea for you to consider....Build what you are proposing into the television sets and Blu Ray players so people who hate the look of film can flick a switch and have HD video.
post #1065 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

Well anyhow, I think know how to get rid of grain without any loss of quality, and to get all of the missing information back.
Instead of fixing images with DNR, or any of the common methods, you could try getting the information back from the next frame of the movie instead.

It's called temporal filtering and Lowry Digital is doing it (among others). The results depend in the first place on the accuracy of taking the missing information from the correct place in the other frames (which is, believe me, anything but simple). If you take it from the right place(s) the results can be very good indeed. But then that's not what happened when we are served the wax versions of films and smearovision versions (either because they didn't use temporal filtering or badly done temporal filtering).
post #1066 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

I want to watch film not high definition video which is what you seem to proposing with your idea. Film has grain and you know what it's beautiful and not the ugly mess you are seeing....Don't you think that what you are saying has not already been done and is in fact part of the current DNR process at some studio's...They fail time and time again....Even if they could succeed why would anyone want a high definition video version of their favorite film when they could have an HD film version of their favorite film ?

Here's another idea for you to consider....Build what you are proposing into the television sets and Blu Ray players so people who hate the look of film can flick a switch and have HD video.

Very very true. I want that grain intact, it is part of the viewing experience for me.

@Pincho:
in mastering it is paramount not to try and mess with the intended look of a film to pander to whatever tastes individual viewers have, once the grain is gone you cannot get it back so it has to be preserved. I completely agree with FoxyMulder and suggest to work on something that can be built into players and displays so that everybody can change/improve/distort the original picture as much or as little as he likes.
post #1067 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

It's called temporal filtering and Lowry Digital is doing it (among others). The results depend in the first place on the accuracy of taking the missing information from the correct place in the other frames (which is, believe me, anything but simple). If you take it from the right place(s) the results can be very good indeed. But then that's not what happened when we are served the wax versions of films and smearovision versions (either because they didn't use temporal filtering or badly done temporal filtering).

Actually, what would be better is cameras that use two films at once, and then it's easy to find the grain, and extrapolate it.
post #1068 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

Actually, what would be better is cameras that use two films at once, and then it's easy to find the grain, and extrapolate it.

Will never happen. There is stock with finer less visible grain and there are digital cinema cameras for people who want very little to no grain. The others who want grain, well, it has to stay on the HD transfer then, because that is the look the film makers wanted.
post #1069 of 1074
Pincho I think you need to take this to another thread or start another one. This one is about Batman.
post #1070 of 1074
Guys let's keep on the topic of the DK transfer.
post #1071 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

Actually, what would be better is cameras that use two films at once, and then it's easy to find the grain, and extrapolate it.

Are you the Pincho Paxton from U.K AVForums ?
post #1072 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

Are you the Pincho Paxton from U.K AVForums ?

That's me....

Anyhow, back on topic then. I'm buying DK, Salo, and Wanted, and I think that these three extremes will give me a better idea of what I prefer about HD viewing.
post #1073 of 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

That's me....
Anyhow, back on topic then. I'm buying DK, Salo, and Wanted, and I think that these three extremes will give me a better idea of what I prefer about HD viewing.

While you are shopping I suggest you also buy
- Gangs of New York
- Shoot Em Up

Variety is the spice in life.
post #1074 of 1074
We are going to close this thread and ask that everyone post in this existing thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1089714
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › "The Dark Knight" PQ issues.