or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World - Page 2

post #31 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Sharpening is harder to see in motion

Oh, Lord, I leave the pedantry to you. Are you suggesting that if people everywhere cannot see sharpening on Mad World (which you don't even own on blu-ray, if I'm reading your comments correctly), they should freeze-frame every image, zoom it, blow it up until they see something? If you don't see the wrongheadedness of this, I don't know what to tell you. You haven't seen the disc - I have, and there is no sharpening on it. I am not being general here, I am talking about the film whose title is also the title of this thread.
post #32 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Oh, Lord, I leave the pedantry to you. Are you suggesting that if people everywhere cannot see sharpening on Mad World (which you don't even own on blu-ray, if I'm reading your comments correctly), they should freeze-frame every image, zoom it, blow it up until they see something? If you don't see the wrongheadedness of this, I don't know what to tell you. You haven't seen the disc - I have, and there is no sharpening on it. I am not being general here, I am talking about the film whose title is also the title of this thread.

Agreed. IaMMMMW has not been sharpened past any normal harvest settings. Very pretty disc.

RAH
post #33 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Sharpening? I gather you haven't actually seen the blu-ray. They don't need to sharpen a 65mm transfer.

They don't need to do a lot of things they do; I have no cause to suspect blu-ray.com's screencaps aren't largely accurate, as they usually are. How much is "too much" sharpening is an entirely subjective assessment, largely based on one's viewing distance vs. screen size (and the sharpness of said screen), and personal tolerance for such things. If someone buys $10 MGM catalog titles sight-unseen I suspect their tolerance is rather high.
post #34 of 121
Just finished watching this, and I think it looked great!
post #35 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

They don't need to do a lot of things they do; I have no cause to suspect blu-ray.com's screencaps aren't largely accurate, as they usually are. How much is "too much" sharpening is an entirely subjective assessment, largely based on one's viewing distance vs. screen size (and the sharpness of said screen), and personal tolerance for such things. If someone buys $10 MGM catalog titles sight-unseen I suspect their tolerance is rather high.

You just had the man who knows this film and its elements rather intimately tell you there is no sharpening. But you see it. I know who I'll trust and believe. My eyes and the eyes of someone who knows the elements and has seen the disc. All the rest is what it usually is - a whole lot of silliness. As I've said before about many things: There is simply no winning on these discussion boards. You could be given proof positive that nothing was done and you still wouldn't believe it because you know best from looking at a screencap. You could be shown a screencap, you'd see sharpening, then you'd be told that it was actually a screencap from the negative without any manipulation and you'd still say it was sharpened. Can you not see how silly this is?
post #36 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Sharpening is harder to see in motion

If it's that hard to see, then it's a non-issue, even assuming it exists.
post #37 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

You could be shown a screencap, you'd see sharpening, then you'd be told that it was actually a screencap from the negative without any manipulation and you'd still say it was sharpened. Can you not see how silly this is?

Then I'd have to ask why an unprocessed negative scan looks like it's been sharpened... I'd have to ask why some restorations look like the unprocessed negative scans made with high quality Nikon and Imacon scanners that I'm personally familiar with, and why some don't, despite both presumably being run through the same Eastman color chemical soup of the time. Must be that pesky Baraka 8K-downsampling problem again

Here are some 4K scans from somewhat contemporary negatives which I don't see any sharpening on, by the way: http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/...-or-j-squared/
post #38 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Oh, Lord, I leave the pedantry to you. Are you suggesting that if people everywhere cannot see sharpening on Mad World (which you don't even own on blu-ray, if I'm reading your comments correctly), they should freeze-frame every image, zoom it, blow it up until they see something? If you don't see the wrongheadedness of this, I don't know what to tell you. You haven't seen the disc - I have, and there is no sharpening on it. I am not being general here, I am talking about the film whose title is also the title of this thread.

Hey I stated a fact, I have not once commented on this film on disc.
Also owning a disc does not make you an expert on it at all
post #39 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

You just had the man who knows this film and its elements rather intimately tell you there is no sharpening. But you see it. I know who I'll trust and believe. My eyes and the eyes of someone who knows the elements and has seen the disc. All the rest is what it usually is - a whole lot of silliness. As I've said before about many things: There is simply no winning on these discussion boards. You could be given proof positive that nothing was done and you still wouldn't believe it because you know best from looking at a screencap. You could be shown a screencap, you'd see sharpening, then you'd be told that it was actually a screencap from the negative without any manipulation and you'd still say it was sharpened. Can you not see how silly this is?

Let's be clear as to "sharpening," precisely what it is, and what it should not be.

In most cases, there is a small bit of sharpening at the harvest state, and this is the norm. The point that should be made, is that there has been no sharpening added that is detrimental to the image. We can easily get lost in words here, much like the question of whether the new Fellowship Blu is green. Of course, it's green. Green is a part of the image. But that doesn't mean that the entire film looks like a lime.

I'm aware that folks on this site get that. But try explaining it to some on some of the more challenged sites.

RAH
post #40 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

Also there's some definite sharpening: http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/4530_8_1080p.jpg

I don't think that's sharpening. You mean on the left side of the policeman's uniform? That looks like... I think it's called "bromide drag". The Professionals on BD had a bit of the same.
post #41 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steen DK View Post

I don't think that's sharpening. You mean on the left side of the policeman's uniform? That looks like... I think it's called "bromide drag". The Professionals on BD had a bit of the same.


Yeah, it doesn't look like digital edge enhancement to me but rather part of the film element. I've heard it referred to as "chromatic abberation". It's hard to see or explain the difference sometimes...I tend to think it has a more "glow" like appearance rather than a uniform halo.

I watched this last night and I think it looks amazing.
post #42 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

I tend to think it has a more "glow" like appearance rather than a uniform halo.

Yes, exactly. Like this: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...38&position=10
post #43 of 121
Chromatic aberration usually refers to this lens artifact (considerably exaggerated in this picture): http://www.opticsreviewer.com/image-...aberration.jpg
post #44 of 121
Could it not be an artifact of the downscale
post #45 of 121
Whatever it is, it's not enough to detract from buying the BD. Especially if it is part of the film element anyway, which I strongly suspect it is. I seriously doubt this is some artifact of downcoversion.

This one looks seriously good. Like almost as good as Fox's The Bible.
post #46 of 121
All the positive comments prompted me to order it from Walmart. Looking forward to watching it.
post #47 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

All the positive comments prompted me to order it from Walmart. Looking forward to watching it.

You won't be sorry. It's outstanding.
post #48 of 121
I have the disc and I can say for the price I paid considering how MGM is just using existing masters in whatever the state I was pleasantly surprised. Their releases are a crapshoot some are fine and others are from horrid masters. But lets get this straight, make no mistake there is an excessive level of sharpening more akin to older masters that were prepped for dvd. While not on the hideous side its more than was needed clearly from the resultant distracting halos throughout the movie. That aside I was pleasantly surprised considering the price and the studio and is it worth purchasing? If you like the movie why yes there is no doubt it is.
post #49 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub24ox7 View Post

I have the disc and I can say for the price I paid considering how MGM is just using existing masters in whatever the state I was pleasantly surprised. Their releases are a crapshoot some are fine and others are from horrid masters. But lets get this straight, make no mistake there is an excessive level of sharpening more akin to older masters that were prepped for dvd. While not on the hideous side its more than was needed clearly from the resultant distracting halos throughout the movie. That aside I was pleasantly surprised considering the price and the studio and is it worth purchasing? If you like the movie why yes there is no doubt it is.

I'm not saying you are wrong but I need to see more evidence of the sharpening. I didn't see any in my viewing and from what I see in the stills posted online, it doesn't look like sharpening in the video realm at all but a film artifact. Can you point to any caps that you feel really represent what you think is digital sharpening?
post #50 of 121
Well, if you assume that the halos are on the film, then there's no "smoking gun" evidence since the application seems to be on the milder side.

To my eyes, the images have the "hard" or "edgy" look that results from sharpening an image further than necessary. To illustrate what I'm talking about, I copied+pasted those Star Trek OCN scans into an image roughly corresponding to the dimensions of a 65mm negative and scaled it down:
not sharpened: http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/7...mmnotsharp.jpg
sharpened, with the resulting edgier, more contrasty look: http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/8...k65mmsharp.jpg

One of the captures from this disc I'm not diggin': http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/4530_2_1080p.jpg
post #51 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub24ox7 View Post

I have the disc and I can say for the price I paid considering how MGM is just using existing masters in whatever the state I was pleasantly surprised. Their releases are a crapshoot some are fine and others are from horrid masters. But lets get this straight, make no mistake there is an excessive level of sharpening more akin to older masters that were prepped for dvd. While not on the hideous side its more than was needed clearly from the resultant distracting halos throughout the movie. That aside I was pleasantly surprised considering the price and the studio and is it worth purchasing? If you like the movie why yes there is no doubt it is.

This master was hardly prepared for DVD - have you SEEN the DVD of Mad World? No, or you could not possibly make such a statement. As to this heinous sharpening - do us all a favor - don't point out screencaps - give us an exact time on the blu-ray where you see this sharpening and obvious halos. Then we can all go look for ourselves. However, if seeing such things requires zooming in until I've got a bunch of popcorn-sized glop on my screen, then no, that I will not do. I want to go to this exact time where you're seeing what you're seeing and I want to see it for myself, as I'm sure others do.
post #52 of 121
I see no evidence of excessive sharpening here.
What I DO see is a VERY detailed movie with no halos at all. When I saw how detailed this one is, I specifically looked for halos, etc.
I NEVER spend time looking for defects. I'd much rather spend time enjoying the film. I figure that if there ARE serious defects, they'll be obvious without me having to look for them.
If anything, at times I found myself paying more attention to how GOOD this one looks instead of paying attention to the movie itself.
I would have no problem using this disc to demonstrate what Blu Ray is about for someone who's never seen one (at least as far as picture quality goes).
I mentioned in another post that some scenes almost have a 3D quality to them.
To my eyes at least, this is an excellent release.
post #53 of 121
Lol sigh there is sharpening and I am not going to take a bunch of screecaps and what I meant by dvd era is that type of sharpening was applied , was it heinous no! its a mild sharpening anyway it was unnecessary amount. Now does the sharpening affect whter I would purchase this title having known about it before hand ? Heck no! its a great movie with a great pq other than the mild sharpening and yes it does have the slight harsh edge to it. Anyway the Pic eric.exe linked from Blu-ray.com has the halo of EE http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/4530_8_1080p.jpg That is the smoking gun but what made me first notice there was mild sharpening was the slight harsh look to the picture and no I did not have to analyze frames to see that. All of you are overreavting its mild but is it there heck yes but in my view it only knocks this down to a 4.25 or 2.5 out of 5.
post #54 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub24ox7 View Post

Lol sigh there is sharpening and I am not going to take a bunch of screecaps and what I meant by dvd era is that type of sharpening was applied , was it heinous no! its a mild sharpening anyway it was unnecessary amount. Now does the sharpening affect whter I would purchase this title having known about it before hand ? Heck no! its a great movie with a great pq other than the mild sharpening and yes it does have the slight harsh edge to it. Anyway the Pic eric.exe linked from Blu-ray.com has the halo of EE http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/4530_8_1080p.jpg That is the smoking gun but what made me first notice there was mild sharpening was the slight harsh look to the picture and no I did not have to analyze frames to see that. All of you are overreavting its mild but is it there heck yes but in my view it only knocks this down to a 4.25 or 2.5 out of 5.

You have people here who are telling you they see no halos. Perhaps what you're seeing is backlight - it's always amazing that a lot of what people think are transfer problems have to do with the principal photography. No one is asking you to go to the trouble of posting screencaps - I don't like them and won't base anything on them. I'm asking you to give me a particular scene or time in the film so I can go see this sharpening and these halos - I and others don't see it, and I, for one, want to stop this stuff by actually being able to see what you're talking about. If I see it, I'll be the first to say oh, that's what you mean. And if I don't, I will also state that. Let's all figure this out together, shall we? Then we'll all know the story.
post #55 of 121
How long will this stay as a Wal-Mart exclusive?
post #56 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub24ox7 View Post

Anyway the Pic eric.exe linked from Blu-ray.com has the halo of EE http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/4530_8_1080p.jpg

If you're referring to this:

... then I'm almost certain that ain't sharpening, but... something else.
post #57 of 121
How The West Was Won has the same type of edge haloing but was also excused as a lens artifact instead of purely digital. I figure it's a combination of both.
post #58 of 121
I went to a film restoration seminar (possibly a lecture - I'm not quite sure about the distinction in English) a couple of years ago and this type of effect appeared on a number of the old, faded prints they ran as part of the demonstration.

edit: That's why I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with any kind of digital sharpening, as these were celluloid prints.
post #59 of 121
You'll notice that subox has not provided a number so we can all go see these halos and sharpening things. How hard would that be? But, I guess it's okay to just hurl these sorts of accusations and then walk away when asked for simple proof (and I don't mean screencaps).
post #60 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

You'll notice that subox has not provided a number so we can all go see these halos and sharpening things.

Since you never see edge enhancement anyway (even when it's glaringly obvious - say, Back to the Future), that would be pretty pointless.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World