Originally Posted by manikin
Not quite true, All it takes is showing any one once what macroblocking, or DNR is, and then it becomes a serious distraction for them. I have very limited experience with the download streams, but if they are even slightly worse than comcraptastic in macroblocking it would be unenjoyable for a movie watching experience.
I agree. My 13 year old teenage daughter said a film was almost unwatchable the other day because of the macroblocking. And she went on about artifacts as well. Surprised me, but I guess she has heard about it enough from me.
DNR I am ok with. I don't really like excessive grain. For films with light to medium grain or grain added are ok with me.
But some of the older flicks have too much grain showing up. And it is usually on older flicks. I know everyone on here says that is how older movies were, but I just don't remember them having grain to the extent that they are on HD today. I am sure I am wrong (or atleast someone will tell me this), but I wonder if it is a result of the master aging much like a newspaper ages over time and changes color. The day of release they look like any othe paper, but over time, their color changes even in the best conditions. It gets to a point where the grain is a distraction. Some good examples off the top of my head are Caddyshack, the last starfighter.. etc. And we accept it because we assume that is how it look in the theater (please don't tell me you remember it in the theater in the 80s - these things were not even discussed much in those days except maybe in the few films schools that were around then and you probably wouldn't have noticed anyway - just an opinion). But perhaps, they didn't look that way.
If you ever watched the special they had on world war 2 where they had color footage of the war, you might understand what I mean. In the documentary, seeing it in color completely changed the way many saw the war for those who were never around during it. It had always been a "black and white" war to them. Seeing it in color made it seem more modern... more real atleast to me. I think we have a tendency of looking at older films as having less "detail" and more grain and such. Was it really the case?
I don't need the whole speech about how grain adds more detail... I agree. It just seems overdone on some older films. Which is why I think it is a problem of aging and not how it originally was. Films like 2001 look great.. of course those types of films were probably better taken care of than ones like Caddyshack.
So back to DNR. I am ok with DNR to an extent. My onkyo actually does a decent job of reducing noise in the picture. And there are on the fly filters you can use. Of course, the downside of DNR is a "softer" picture.
I look at it this way... and it is just my perspective and may not be yours. I am fine with grain and actually consider it a plus.... to an extent. When it gets to the point of being noticeable in that it is a distraction, then I think it needs to be reduced. Who knows, this may be a disaster waiting to happen, but couldn't they remove the noise and add some back in for detail to the "cleaned" image? Much like they do with 300 (though obvisously not to that extent)