or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Universal 100th Anniversary releases
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Universal 100th Anniversary releases - Page 6

post #151 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

I don't agree with this...nor do I agree with the noise reduction in the optical blowups. You're right in that it gives the release an electronic, video-like image at times. I just wanted to chime in because you seem to be upset that Universal repaired actual damage....which makes no sense.

More like annoyed that Universal since it made the switch to BD is doing this heavy filtering over and over with catalog titles, not to mention amused by those who keep claiming Universal has mended it's ways. As I stated many times I would rather have the damage in then automatic 'cleaning' because it no longer resembless film.
But I guess you think the non-Criterion Gojira BDs are better.
post #152 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

More like annoyed that Universal since it made the switch to BD is doing this heavy filtering over and over with catalog titles, not to mention amused by those who keep claiming Universal has mended it's ways. As I stated many times I would rather have the damage in then automatic 'cleaning' because it no longer resembless film.
But I guess you think the non-Criterion Gojira BDs are better.

I still think it's possible Universal haven't gotten over HD-DVD's death and are therefore putting a half-arsed effort into everything.

This theory might be wrong but it wouldn't surprise me.
post #153 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

I still think it's possible Universal haven't gotten over HD-DVD's death and are therefore putting a half-arsed effort into everything.

This theory might be wrong but it wouldn't surprise me.

If true Universal would be screwing over those who followed them over to the BD drm format. However I think it's more likely the management is just being cheap and lazy or think the DVD 'look' is what is wanted.
post #154 of 223
De-graining and dust/dirt/damage removal have nothing to do with one another.
post #155 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

De-graining and dust/dirt/damage removal have nothing to do with one another.

De-graining is a blur filter, it affects everything including dust/dirt/damage and strong use of it affects such stuff a lot. Try freeware image software like gimp if you do not believe it. Next I guess I will be told it does not affect detail.
post #156 of 223
This is terrible: http://images2.static-bluray.com/rev...8_18_1080p.jpg

Universal can make all the videos they want though
post #157 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

De-graining is a blur filter, it affects everything including dust/dirt/damage and strong use of it affects such stuff a lot. Try freeware image software like gimp if you do not believe it. Next I guess I will be told it does not affect detail.

No it isn't. You think studios use freeware degraining algorithms that are in Gimp? Any half-decent degraining tool is going to work temporally, over a sequence of frames, something you can't do with a still image. That's why you get slow-motion grain and smearing with most types of DNR.
The removal of grain is not a side-effect of removing debris and damage. A DNR algorithm would be piss-poor at removing debris and damage, and a dust-busting algorithm would be completely unable to deal with grain, because they are very different phenomena and require different approaches.
post #158 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

This is terrible: http://images2.static-bluray.com/rev...8_18_1080p.jpg

Universal can make all the videos they want though

See, even the boy looks stunned and upset that Universal is eventually going to filter his details.
post #159 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

No it isn't. You think studios use freeware degraining algorithms that are in Gimp? Any half-decent degraining tool is going to work temporally, over a sequence of frames, something you can't do with a still image. That's why you get slow-motion grain and smearing with most types of DNR.
The removal of grain is not a side-effect of removing debris and damage. A DNR algorithm would be piss-poor at removing debris and damage, and a dust-busting algorithm would be completely unable to deal with grain, because they are very different phenomena and require different approaches.

Exactly. That's all was trying to say...not sure where the confusion is coming from. Removal of dirt and damage is NOT a bad thing.
post #160 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

No it isn't. You think studios use freeware degraining algorithms that are in Gimp? Any half-decent degraining tool is going to work temporally, over a sequence of frames, something you can't do with a still image. That's why you get slow-motion grain and smearing with most types of DNR.
The removal of grain is not a side-effect of removing debris and damage. A DNR algorithm would be piss-poor at removing debris and damage, and a dust-busting algorithm would be completely unable to deal with grain, because they are very different phenomena and require different approaches.

lol. The old claim that mastering houses have automatic 'special magic sauce that does not degrade' which has been made since the laser discs days, it was untrue then and is still untrue today.
Universal made this claim with BTTF and the result was a degraded image. It's hard to put down the mastering houses and software sellers for their habit of repeating this falsehood because it preys on the misunderstanding that even to the best software film grain and 'debris/dirt' are very hard for them to tell the difference. Both are embedded in the image, mostly throughout the shot and there is no special 'flag' in the frames to help the software tell between the two.

If this really was the case every catalog title would look perfect. You think Criterion refused to do it on Gojira because they like print damage? It's really very simple the more print damage there is the harder it is for the software to fix it without degrading the film and turning it into video. Automatic filtering is not prohibitively expensive, the by hand work is.
post #161 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

lol. The old claim that mastering houses have automatic 'special magic sauce that does not degrade' which has been made since the laser discs days, it was untrue then and is still untrue today.
Universal made this claim with BTTF and the result was a degraded image. It's hard to put down the mastering houses and software sellers for their habit of repeating this falsehood because it preys on the misunderstanding that even to the best software film grain and 'debris/dirt' are very hard for them to tell the difference. Both are embedded in the image, mostly throughout the shot and there is no special 'flag' in the frames to help the software tell between the two.

If this really was the case every catalog title would look perfect. You think Criterion refused to do it on Gojira because they like print damage? It's really very simple the more print damage there is the harder it is for the software to fix it without degrading the film and turning it into video. Automatic filtering is not prohibitively expensive, the by hand work is.

Um, I didn't say it does not "degrade" the image. My point is, professional denoising algorithms are much more than a simple blur filter or anything you could have in Photoshop. They attempt to leave the stuff they don't think is grain, and debris/damage looks nothing like grain, which is a continuous and random phenomenon occurring every frame and the entire frame.
Don't take my word for it, look up any professional restoration software package. The denoising and dust-busting are separate functions.
Any movie, even if it's in good condition, is going to have some dust on the film. Good transfers remove that stuff, but don't have any DNR. Removing one does not necessitate removing the other in any way.
post #162 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Um, I didn't say it does not "degrade" the image. My point is, professional denoising algorithms are much more than a simple blur filter or anything you could have in Photoshop. They attempt to leave the stuff they don't think is grain, and debris/damage looks nothing like grain, which is a continuous and random phenomenon occurring every frame and the entire frame.

I think, at least we are talking about both are degrading methods. However I never stated DNR was a 'simple' blur I stated, correctly, it is a blur filter and as such it affects the entire image no matter if it is grain or dust/dirt/damage and strong use of it affects such stuff a lot and there is no 'special magic sauce' in the filter or flags in the film that prevents it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Don't take my word for it, look up any professional restoration software package. The denoising and dust-busting are separate functions.

They are both 'cleaning' software and that's professional re-mastering software not restoration, true restoration is done by hand, and it's no coincidence they put both in the package.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Any movie, even if it's in good condition, is going to have some dust on the film. Good transfers remove that stuff, but don't have any DNR. Removing one does not necessitate removing the other in any way.

At best that would count only for film in very good condition and I was talking about films in poor condition which causes both automatic filters to heavily degrade the image.
post #163 of 223
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT just came in. The image is crisp and despite some obvious aged elements of the transfer, IMO has all the clarity you would have thought TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD would've. If the rest of the "100 years" titles are like ALL QUIET we'll be in good shape. One can only hope.
post #164 of 223
Many of the shots look off to me, sharpened and covered in noise.
post #165 of 223
looks like there is some video noise but nothing about it looks sharpened...

preorder not cancelled
post #166 of 223
You guys seem shy about posting the links:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/All-Qu...3/#Screenshots
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...tern_front.htm

The images look a lot better then Mockingbird, I see lots of EE although it's not thick. Film grain probably suppressed since the review complains of frozen grain.
post #167 of 223
post #168 of 223
Thread Starter 
More releases:

About a Boy

Quote:


Commentary with directors Chris and Paul Weitz
Spotlight on Location: The Making of About a Boy featurette
Full version of "Santa's Super Sleigh" song
English to English Dictionary feature
About a Boy streets on May 1st.


Definitely Maybe

Quote:


Commentary with director Adam Brooks and Ryan Reynolds
Two behind-the-scenes featurettes:
- Creating a Romance
- The Changing Times of Definitely, Maybe
Definitely, Maybe streets on May 1st.


Typical I bought the UK versions with no extras, arse!
post #169 of 223
Bumping for convenience
post #170 of 223
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

Bumping for convenience

Is something bad coming?
post #171 of 223
It's just that with Deer Hunter on the way, I thought I'd update this thread as well.
post #172 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by dm2006ri View Post

all quiet on the western front just came in. The image is crisp and despite some obvious aged elements of the transfer, imo has all the clarity you would have thought to kill a mockingbird would've. If the rest of the "100 years" titles are like all quiet we'll be in good shape. One can only hope.


+1.
post #173 of 223
OUT OF AFRICA, as I wrote in the other thread, has also been treated properly -- it looks gorgeous in fact. (Too bad they didn't get it right the first time!).
post #174 of 223
Thread Starter 
I am watching Tower Heist now and the trailer for 100 years on it is encoded below 1mbs for the majority of it!
Universal Pictures Ruining 100 years of memories
post #175 of 223
Now that The Raiders set was announced (and with Alien, BTTF, Jurassic Park and Godfather all pulling off the same crap) where all 4 movies are packaged together so you end up having to pay for the horrible Crystal Skull movie, is anybody else a little worried that Universal will end up packaging Jaws in a box set where you have to buy all 4 movies as well. I could handle owning Jaws 2 but the thought of having Jaws 3 and 4 just sitting in my collection makes me want to puke and with all this 3d crap going on now I wouldn't put it past them to use that as an excuse to throw in Jaws 3D.

I don't wanna wait another year (been waiting long enough) for them to come out separately. Has Universal confirmed that Jaws is being sold as a single issue?
post #176 of 223
Thread Starter 
Jaws and 3D are single releases
post #177 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Dan View Post

Now that The Raiders set was announced (and with Alien, BTTF, Jurassic Park and Godfather all pulling off the same crap) where all 4 movies are packaged together so you end up having to pay for the horrible Crystal Skull movie, is anybody else a little worried that Universal will end up packaging Jaws in a box set where you have to buy all 4 movies as well. I could handle owning Jaws 2 but the thought of having Jaws 3 and 4 just sitting in my collection makes me want to puke and with all this 3d crap going on now I wouldn't put it past them to use that as an excuse to throw in Jaws 3D.

I don't wanna wait another year (been waiting long enough) for them to come out separately. Has Universal confirmed that Jaws is being sold as a single issue?

Don't... don't say things like that.
post #178 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Dan View Post

Now that The Raiders set was announced (and with Alien, BTTF, Jurassic Park and Godfather all pulling off the same crap) where all 4 movies are packaged together so you end up having to pay for the horrible Crystal Skull movie, is anybody else a little worried that Universal will end up packaging Jaws in a box set where you have to buy all 4 movies as well. I could handle owning Jaws 2 but the thought of having Jaws 3 and 4 just sitting in my collection makes me want to puke and with all this 3d crap going on now I wouldn't put it past them to use that as an excuse to throw in Jaws 3D.

I don't wanna wait another year (been waiting long enough) for them to come out separately. Has Universal confirmed that Jaws is being sold as a single issue?

The Alien films can be bought separately not too mention the Dirty Harry films were later put out as double features.
post #179 of 223
I noticed they are releasing the Universal 100th anniversary edition of the 1931 Dracula in the UK this April on DVD. http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/30096...rlrefer=search

Yet, no Blu Ray announced? And Blu Ray is no longer a new format.
post #180 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by DM2006RI View Post

OUT OF AFRICA, as I wrote in the other thread, has also been treated properly -- it looks gorgeous in fact. (Too bad they didn't get it right the first time!).

Except for some shots where they could not resist to add ugly sharpening haloes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Universal 100th Anniversary releases