Film Grain Allowed - Survey Poll - Page 2

A lot of audio commentaries go into the look of the film and the stock selected, but the thread is about a film like appearance.
This is the closest we have got at home on a retail product to looking like film.
The grain should be there if it was there to begin with, the thread is not all about grain tho.

I've started avoiding discussions where "absolutists" tend to congregate, even though I often tend to be one myself about some things.

Even though, as a cineaste, one-time professional projectionist, current professional videographer/editor, and former film-festival organizer I am very familiar with what film looks like when projected -- all kinds of film, on all kinds of screens, in all kinds of theaters and other venues -- I find that my standards have loosened up in the era of Blu-ray.

I find that there is a much wider range of "looks" that I can tolerate and enjoy in a home-entertainment context than are normally tolerated in the thread. Indeed, when I upgraded my home system to HD a couple of years ago I very intentionally chose a display that was big enough to sit close to and feel cinematic, and small enough to back away from so as to gloss over image imperfections, specifically so as to re3duce my frustration level.

You see, substandard projection in theaters is so prevalent that it prevents me from going to see movies except on rare occasions. I'm simply not interested in introducing the same kind of annoyance and frustration into my home environment.

So I can certainly appreciate the gorgeousness of a restoration and transfer like How the West Was Won or The Sand Pebbles, pull up the close to the screen and wallow. But I can also enjoy more hit-or-miss titles like Dark Knight, Dark City, Silence of the Lambs, Amadeus, etc. because I want to. It's not necessary for everything to be perfect for me to enjoy watching it; as long as the flaws are not in-your-face horrible I'd rather just let the film pull me in. And the arguments just make me tired.

I'm a little less tolerant of bad multichannel remixes on discs that don't also include the original sound. I was a musician and sound mixer in between being a projectionist and media-center manager, and sound is always #1 for me.

I think we're making the same point, Scowl. And for the most part - upwards of 95% - I prefer the look of film to digital.

Personally I just sit farther back on some of the more obviously DNR'ed releases if I'm in a mood that it will bother me.

I find the whole argument to be a waste of time. Pro or con, neither side is going to change anything via an AVS thread. Too much grain can be very noticeable as much as too much DNR. There's really no correct single answer. Since grain is just a limitation of the medium that was meant to capture a movie. I seriously doubt most directors wouldn't prefer to work with HD "back in the day". One camp thinks DNR should never be used, while another thinks grain is defect. Personally, I think the answer varies based on the mastering of each individual film. Some DNR can make a BD look better, some removes too much detail. Like everything in life, there's usually a necessary balance.

IMHO, it's a waste of time to argue about it on AVS, but you're certainly welcome to waste your time arguing about it if AVS willingly provides the space and bandwidth. I'd rather spend my time watching another movie since life is too short...

I don't want to guess artistic intent, nitpick, or be pedantic about image processing. They are not evil nasty things, just tools that can be used or misused. I have my idea of what a good blu-ray looks like, but I doubt I'll always agree with everyone here, so to me a few good screen grabs tell me much more than anyone's review.

That is exactly one example. Can you come up with any others?

And again, there's no zooming involved. It's opening the mattes by 21 pixels each on top and bottom.

The amount of letterboxing on a 1.85:1 movie is less than the overscan on a typical television. And it's certainly less than the typical projection variances in the majority of commercial theaters. Cinematographers know enough to leave a little leeway around the edges of the frame to account for those variances.

Opening up a 1.85:1 image to 1.78:1 does not affect the compositional intent of the photography. While Jason Reitman may be anal enough to complain about that, few others in the industry are. It's simply not a battle worth fighting.

You do not even need to remember a movie from 1986 to know it did not have DNR, EE, wacked off color correction and other videoize effects that get some people here annoyed because no such movie tools existed back then. The vast majority of theatrical releases still do not have such effects simply because they are not needed so why do HD formats? It's really a VHS and DVD legacy issue.


I groan whenever anybody does that, but it is a lot rarer now and I do not recall that being done for a long time in the grain thread.

One quibble I have with the grain thread is it has a unintentional first come first served aspect to it, not everybody is willing to pay the premium prices BD titles have when first released and not everybody is into renting or they have a backlog of titles to watch and hence they feel they are way too behind to contribute.

A couple of small suggestions and comments for FoxyMulder's thread. The title of it may confuse new readers to the forum and may not attract casual readers to check it out. Always think about how a new member or guest would see the title and react to it. The current title of the thread does not really clarify the actual content that can be found in the first post, which is a solid list of Blu-ray titles that are faithful transfers without the deleterious processing that seriously affects the visual impact of a movie.

As for participation, possibly tinker with the process and formatting, and get as many posters involved as possible in that. Getting members psychologically invested in its structure and formulation is the main key to a vital and working thread.

I do follow the thread on a regular basis and think it is a valuable addition to this forum, but I feel my energies are best directed at the PQ Tier thread.

Other: I'm an outspoken critic of the improper use of EE and DVNR (moreso the former than the latter as the latter has its places), but I don't visit the forums often enough to bother posting in any particular thread let alone that one specifically.

The only change we can effect is if we have direct contact with studio insiders and voice our displeasure. I'm sure they dislike the way certain film properties are handled, but some studio executive might have their hands tied. Thus, it becomes a moot point.

Yes, it's not easy and far from foolproof. Basically it's looking for the absence of any filtering that makes the BD encode look "fake" or "unnatural". A lot of it is just having seen many discs and knowing what to look for. The same that was applied to SD-DVDs is getting applied to BDs (eg. DNR, EE)

larry

One issue is the demographic distribution of BD . IMO this will stunt the grain allowed thread in any case.

Art

• I don't understand why the film grain allowed thread is not understood properly.
  
• I get all my information from the Tier thread and Film Grain thread with regards image quality.
  
• I like the thread starter and taking part because of that
  
• I dislike excessive film grain that obscures background details
  
• I am taking part but i'm not sure how not to
  
• I feel my opinion will be criticized as well as welcomed as long as it makes sense.
  
• Sometimes, I prefer to just read the views of others rather than taking part
  
• I find the thread to be slighlt negative. For instance, some titles are in issues list for even the minutest of NR or EE.

One thing that I disliked during the initial stages was misunderstanding the PQ tier thread and attacking it to an extent.


I guess something is wrong with the seating distance.

I am in agreement with Phantom's suggestions. The thread title needs to be renamed to something more catchy. Sometimes, members don't get the mood to post due to various factors whilst some tend to stay away from being criticized. When some learn from their mistakes and try to post with sense, patrolling officers barge in, echo the past, and blow the whistle. Considering the low count of members who frequent Blu-ray section this isn't going to bring in any radical change but the thread should remain stickied.

Ultimately, everything is left to the individual.

Since the theme of the thread seems to be that of judging how well the Blu-ray captures the original film (or 'movie' in the case of movies shot with digital cameras), perhaps the title of the thread should be something like 'Blu-ray Fidelity Thread'.

I think PQ can be defined in several ways. For some it is detail - can you see every pore? For some it is the glossy, colorful and noise-free look such as Discovery HD. For others, it is faithful reproduction. For others it is good contrast (ie. not washed out).

When I demo my home theatre I use Elton 60, so I was surprised when it was ranked so low in the other thread, but now I understand why - they intentionally smoothed out Elton's face so there are no visible wrinkles. But I still use it as my demo disc because I like that kind of DiscoveryHD look.

So will we end up with 5 different PQ threads, one for each of the criteria? For me I only want one, because there are already too many threads here for me to keep up with.

I don't post in the thread because I believe film grain shouldn't be allowed! Yes, I prefer the digital look and will choose it over the film look any day of the week.

That's more than kind of you ! I think since it is a technical thread that even minute criticisms should be welcome if they are valid,we learn from it.

Art

I vote that this is the most confusing and obtuse poll I have yet seen created at AVS.

I would love to hear things like that

My main reason I do not post is that I am still useing a 720P projector and I do not think that I would do justice to review 1080p material on it.

Other:

1) I feel the concept is subjective in nature and thus requires references of the intent to serve as a basis or foundation (which most of the time will be lacking). I would assume that some more casual posters feel less inclined to contribute because of the subjective nature, as it's harder to quantify intent than it is to quantify how detailed something looks or how saturated the colors are (i.e., every layperson has a reference for the latter).

2) My opinion seemed unwelcome at the time.

I'll simply add that, in my opinion, the thread is best used as an educational tool while simultaneously serving as a "avoid these titles" list. It's much easier to come to consensus conclusions about which titles have excessive DNR and EE added to them than it is to reach a consensus on the original artistic intent. In this light, I think it's a valuable asset to AVS.

My 2 cents.

Brandon

How about Reference Blu Ray Thread. The 3D requirement and lack of grain is new to the tier thread. It used to be a given in the old days with DVD that the disc did not have to look like video games and, personally, I don't feel that they should need to. I also don't feel that the reference BD thread should have to take a back seat to a thread that shows an ignorance of the look of silver halide crystals floating about in real film or the fact that all films weren't produced to look a certain way.

Art

This mentality would probably hinder participation in the thread, no matter what it's called.

Regarding the name, I can't really place a perfect name for it. Something that incorporates a faithful reproduction and film analysis would work, in my opinion. The sad thing is it probably has to be slightly snazzier than that to catch the eye of the more casual posters.

Brandon

The reason I don't participate in the tier thread is simply that. It is much like some guys I know who refuse to look at any black and white films because "they look like cardboard ,why bother".

Art

Still think it should be renamed the Reference Blu Ray Thread. Let those who fell that film like titles shouldn't be reference argue their position.

Art