or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Industry Insiders Q&A Thread: only Questions to insiders please
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Industry Insiders Q&A Thread: only Questions to insiders please - Page 147  

post #4381 of 4623
Would also love the Spiderman films. WB is getting us the Superman films. Would be a natural companion from Sony pictures.
post #4382 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man
...and this is output onto a film negative for making release prints.

Bugs, for further reading…………………………………..see……… …
http://www.cinematographers.nl/THEDoPH5.htm#digital

I'm sensing that the released film is only as good as the scanned resolution level. If 2K then I assume the 35 mm print resolution is only 2K at best, even though intrinsically film has far higer magnitude of resolution.

How is this output performed? Is it by projecting image for camera capture?
post #4383 of 4623
No reason to go from DI via negativ for filmprints:

Cinevator™five Digital Film Printer


Do one have to convert a 4K DI to a 2K before compression with VC-1?
post #4384 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner
Correct.

Now 1.5 Mbps DD+ is by all accounts perceptually lossless for current titles, although I haven't seen conclusive research yet to verify this would be true in all cases. But I suspect that we may determine that DD+ is "good enough" for perceptually perfect reproduction of any film soundtrack in any extant listening environment.
Isn't perceptually lossless a subjective term that changes depending on the person? All audio codecs (even 128kbps or lower mp3) have perceptual models that attempt some level of making things more perceptually lossless.

I would agree that most audio encodes could be perceptually lossless to me, I seem to have lost ability to hear anything above 16kHz, but there are people who have an uncanny ability to pick out the original using headphones, everytime you give them any stereo mp3 encodes at bitrates as high as 320kbps, which is only a 4:1 compression. It would not be perceptually lossless to them, would it?
post #4385 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1965
Please, please, please release Starship Troopers and please do the most amazing job you can at it. Treat it with as much reverence as a man lost in a desert, chased by wolves, fallen down a well, holding on to a branch, with rats chewing on the roots, would accord the drop of nectar off the flower at the end of that branch.
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
post #4386 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Would also love the Spiderman films. WB is getting us the Superman films. Would be a natural companion from Sony pictures.
I'll pass the message on. I think the studio appreciates that this is highly anticipated BD release.
post #4387 of 4623
paidgeek I'd like to ask if this was a personal decision to help and answer peoples questions here on AVS or an actual business decision by Sony to have someone come talk to us early adopters?
post #4388 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
I think most here would vote for "a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate."
post #4389 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
personally, and i'm sure there will be vehement disagreement with me but understand this is my opinion, i would maybe start by asking those invoved in making/producing the title. i ay this b/c it is very likely that having so much grain be so apparent on the new display technologies which didn't exist at the time of creating the tile, may end up displaying way more grain than was ever intended (if grain was intended at all and not just something they had to accept as par for the course.

i don't mind some grain, but extreme grain is defiitely not my preference and just ends up looking 'nosy' and/or 'dirty' ymmv

starship troopers wold be a title that i wouldn't want to see excessive/much grain on given its sci-fi/futuristic genre.

whereas something like an old war piece, eg, saving private ryan/band of brothers, the grain and grit could add to the experience.

i would get the film creators input!
post #4390 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
Personally I cant get enough of grain, I simply adore it, its the main reason I hate DVD actually. But I understand how it could be bad for buisness cos most people seem to hate it :(
But my vote goes for no artificial tempering, preserve all grain as much as possible.
post #4391 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
If the master is indeed that grainy, that is going to be a minus. In this case, if there are indeed tools that can reduce grain to the BHD level, I would happily take it. If the tools introduces artifacts, I'd rather take the original and live with the grain. Except I hope this encode will have peaks of 35 with avg of 20. MPEG2 would be ok at that rate and I actually prefer MPEG2 at high bitrates - they seem to preserve face and skin better.

Is there any chance that the CG segment of the breakup of the Roger Young was preserved in digital and can be used for the BD? My one complaint about BD is that Serenity has this completely clear pixel and grain-free CG space battle sequence that BD does not have, and if by chance the original CG in digital is still available, that segment with 1920x1080 without any fake grain added would be my reference sequence for BD.

In terms of grain reduction, how does Devil Wears Prada rate on that scale of grainyness? I actually find that title to have very strange grain behavior very different from BHD, even on bright scenes. What master could they have used on that title? Or is it just the 14-17Mbps MPEG2 that is at fault here?
post #4392 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner
Correct. But it's not bit-accurate from the master after adding the watermarking. So the goal is to have watermarking without perceptual effect.


That's certainly an issue as well - a 16-bit dither from a 24-bit master certainly can't be considered mathematically lossless, although it can potentially be perceptually lossless in many scenarios.

My broader point is that mathematically lossless is already a lost cause for a variety of reasons. So, as consumers and content creators, we should be focusing on providing perceptually perfect audio, and not worrying about the least significant bit so much.
Ahhh, gotcha. Thanks Ben.
post #4393 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner
Statmux is also something that'll make doing high-bit somewhat easier.
Ben, I understand that this capability (aka dynamux) is not yet present in the toolset, and I certainly understand that you can't comment specifically on unannounced things... but Amir has already disclosed that this feature is being worked on for future encoder versions.

Given what you know about the bitrates fo multiple tracks on the disc... how would you guess that statmux would bring value:

- Allow a 24 bit track where previously only a 16 bit may have fit?

- Allow an additional lossy track (another language, etc...)?

- Allow lossless where only lossy may have previously fit?

- Give the video some addtional bits to work with?

- Allow some/more IME where previously none may have fit?


Are these reasonable scenarios that statmux may allow? Obviously not catagorically, but depending on some variables (# of tracks, encoding complexty, etc...?)for a given title?

Thanks for any SWAG you can venture. ;)
post #4394 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
Thou Shall Not Filter. :D

Thanks for providing your insight here, paidgeek... and for being interested in what we as consumer's want. Very refreshing.
post #4395 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
I'm kinda shocked that a couple people here have suggested removal of some of the grain. Generally, I would say that film grain should always be preserved, assuming,
1. This is how the filmmakers wanted it.
and/or
2. This is how the film looked when projected on its initial release.

I am a little surprised that Starship Troopers would look so grainy. According to the IMDB Black Hawk Down was shot using Super 35, while ST was shot using spherical 35mm. The Super 35 movie is generally more grainy, right? Is it possible that the master is an incorrect reflection of how the film is supposed to look? After all, how old is that master?
post #4396 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
I can easily imagine that if those inherent grains are just kept to preserve maximum details in the picture, many people will complain about its "dirtiness" and "lack of 3D-look". However, personally, I would pick the one which provide maximum resolution/details with extreme bit rate, rather than filtered out and flat image, since on my viewing environment, difference between those two are very obvious (I was disappointed by certain titles which got highest praise of PQ, since it looked "clean" but lacked the fine details and did not look HD for me).

One question, how much is the grainy level of Starship Troopers? Is it similar level of Xmen3, or less, or even worse?
post #4397 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio
However, personally, I would pick the one which provide maximum resolution/details with extreme bit rate, rather than filtered out and flat image, since on my viewing environment, difference between those two are very obvious (I was disappointed by certain titles which got highest praise of PQ, since it looked "clean" but lacked the fine details and did not look HD for me).
As already noted, I completely agree.
post #4398 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
The enthusiasts will want the transparency. But, I expect the more general mass audience will want to see a pristine picture. They'll equate analog noise with lack of quality, rather than its preservation as proof of quality.

It is going to become a big contention going forward, IMHO. OAR has nothing on this.

Gary
post #4399 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
Make it as close as possible to how it appeared at one’s local movie theater back in the day.
(um, that’s assuming they did normal maintenance on their projector :rolleyes: ).
post #4400 of 4623
^ I think from some of the comments about sparkling look in the hd-dvd forum, it should be clear that general public doesn't like film grain and want more CG or HDCAM type experience from HD.

Ice Age is probably the best you can get on BD to that sparkling glitter look. If the grain looks natural, I don't mind as much, but they look very strange on some of the lower bitrate titles, and that's what I want to avoid seeing. If you can make the grain transparent, by all means go ahead, if not, might as well filter it first to avoid artifacting.

It's the lesser evil to filter than to artifact. As a gesture of goodwill, Starship Troopers done in BD50 would go a long way.
post #4401 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT
paidgeek I'd like to ask if this was a personal decision to help and answer peoples questions here on AVS or an actual business decision by Sony to have someone come talk to us early adopters?
Credit goes to Penton-man for convincing me that SPE should venture in. I was advised against it by persons inside and outside Sony. There are countless people working on Blu-ray at the studio. I thought it was a disservice to them not to have someone here to answer questions.

Some of my colleagues at other companies have tried on a limited basis to provide hardware insight. I hope they will do so again, but they have a few bruises.
post #4402 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1965
If the master is indeed that grainy, that is going to be a minus. In this case, if there are indeed tools that can reduce grain to the BHD level, I would happily take it. If the tools introduces artifacts, I'd rather take the original and live with the grain. Except I hope this encode will have peaks of 35 with avg of 20. MPEG2 would be ok at that rate and I actually prefer MPEG2 at high bitrates - they seem to preserve face and skin better.

Is there any chance that the CG segment of the breakup of the Roger Young was preserved in digital and can be used for the BD? My one complaint about BD is that Serenity has this completely clear pixel and grain-free CG space battle sequence that BD does not have, and if by chance the original CG in digital is still available, that segment with 1920x1080 without any fake grain added would be my reference sequence for BD.

In terms of grain reduction, how does Devil Wears Prada rate on that scale of grainyness? I actually find that title to have very strange grain behavior very different from BHD, even on bright scenes. What master could they have used on that title? Or is it just the 14-17Mbps MPEG2 that is at fault here?
I have not reviewed "Devil Wears Prada". I'll try to get a look in the next couple of weeks.
post #4403 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
Suggestion... Why doesn't the studio(s) just put a "making of" the HD transfer "special feature" on the titles that have less than pristine (grainy) production values.

Show the master, show the technician working through encoding, show the results match the master elements and a lot of the doubts will go away.

b2b
post #4404 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarod M
I'm kinda shocked that a couple people here have suggested removal of some of the grain. Generally, I would say that film grain should always be preserved, assuming,
1. This is how the filmmakers wanted it.
and/or
2. This is how the film looked when projected on its initial release.

I am a little surprised that Starship Troopers would look so grainy. According to the IMDB Black Hawk Down was shot using Super 35, while ST was shot using spherical 35mm. The Super 35 movie is generally more grainy, right? Is it possible that the master is an incorrect reflection of how the film is supposed to look? After all, how old is that master?
My observation having met with some DP's to discuss some of these titles is that they rarely strive for heavy film grain except as a special effect (like flashbacks). I think the creative community have rarely seen how these films look on very bright LCD's or other full resolution screens, not for lack of interest, but because they are a relatively new technology. When they do, it is not cries of joy that you hear. The films are made for the big screen first and because of optics, light output, weave and so on you cannot resolve the same detail on a film screen that you can on a full res display. For these reasons the film grain is mitigated to some extent in that environment.

From the posts I think the general desire is to keep as much of the original intact as possible. I would recommend that the users who do not want to see so much grain use the NR tools that are included in their player or monitor. Is that reasonable? In addition to that, it will take consumer education to explain why pictures can be so variable where film grain is concerned, in high definition (this among other things). It would help if the press got involved. Maybe some good educational stories that are positive about the fact we actually now have a medium that can reproduce the grain in the first place.
post #4405 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
Credit goes to Penton-man for convincing me that SPE should venture in. I was advised against it by persons inside and outside Sony. There are countless people working on Blu-ray at the studio. I thought it was a disservice to them not to have someone here to answer questions.

Some of my colleagues at other companies have tried on a limited basis to provide hardware insight. I hope they will do so again, but they have a few bruises.
Well, let me say that I'm glad SPE is trying to interact with us here. Don't take this the wrong way, but SPE Bd releases have been the least impressive so far. It seems they're headed in the right direction though.

For some more feedback from above for you:
1.)would rather see the film grain left in; the most accurate representation of the film should be the goal here
2.)allow me to put in a second vote for the Spider-man franchise. :) Here's hoping they'll be out in 2007 with pristine presentation and HD extras w/ lossless sound.

BTW, I just got a PS3 today (well, it's being shipped as we speak). :) So please pass on that the strategy of crossover from gaming platforms to movie viewing is well under way. ;)

Again, glad you're here. Thanks to Penton as well.
post #4406 of 4623
paidgeek, don´t you think that DP´s and directors should look at the final 1080p encodes and give the OK before the disc is done? Maybe it will be in their contracts...BTW, I have read that Sci-Fi is showing an extended version of Spider-Man 2, do you know if that will be in the Blu-ray? Or maybe will there be branching to allow 2 versions? Thanks for the answers, and please keep writing here, it´s great that you guys take the time to answer us.
post #4407 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
It is sharp, it is grainy, make that very grainy (think BHD X2). Are you ready for that? It would be interesting to know the consensus here because we can make a very transparent picture at an extreme bit rate, or we can reduce the grain with the latest tools.
In the case of Starship Troopers, I say smooth it out! This would apply to most sci-fi flicks, as well. Something like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow would be a rare exception because it was supposed to have a '40's look. Of course, for "artistic" grain like in Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down or even The Exorcist, every effort should be made to preserve the grain.

But for B-movies, genre films, porn, horror, budget sci-fi, etc, you should do whatever you can to make the disc watchable. Take, for example, Hellraiser: Deader (aka Hellraiser 7). Anybody who says "preserve the director's intent/artistic vision/blah blah blah" should take a hard look at this film. This DVD is so grainy it's almost hard to see what's going on. I had to re-encode it to H.264 with Avisynth filters "FluxsmoothT(3).RemoveGrain(mode=1)" for pre-processing just to make it watchable! Unfortunately, Avisynth doesn't have a filter to fix the plot, but that's another story ;)
post #4408 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodspoon
paidgeek, don´t you think that DP´s and directors should look at the final 1080p encodes and give the OK before the disc is done? Maybe it will be in their contracts...BTW, I have read that Sci-Fi is showing an extended version of Spider-Man 2, do you know if that will be in the Blu-ray? Or maybe will there be branching to allow 2 versions? Thanks for the answers, and please keep writing here, it´s great that you guys take the time to answer us.
When equipment that is considered to be a reliable reference is available, then I think you will see it used as a standard practice. Like other industry changes, this will take some time.

I can't answer about Spiderman2, I don't know what the plan is and please understand that even if I do know something, this information needs to come from the marketing department through the press. I will do my best to answer all technical questions.
post #4409 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
Credit goes to Penton-man for convincing me that SPE should venture in. I was advised against it by persons inside and outside Sony. There are countless people working on Blu-ray at the studio. I thought it was a disservice to them not to have someone here to answer questions.

Some of my colleagues at other companies have tried on a limited basis to provide hardware insight. I hope they will do so again, but they have a few bruises.
Your presence here is very welcome and very much appreciated.

You need to understand that there is a great desire on the part of us consumers to have a better understanding of the processes and decisions behind what we are buying.
post #4410 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek
My observation having met with some DP's to discuss some of these titles is that they rarely strive for heavy film grain except as a special effect (like flashbacks). I think the creative community have rarely seen how these films look on very bright LCD's or other full resolution screens, not for lack of interest, but because they are a relatively new technology. When they do, it is not cries of joy that you hear. The films are made for the big screen first and because of optics, light output, weave and so on you cannot resolve the same detail on a film screen that you can on a full res display. For these reasons the film grain is mitigated to some extent in that environment.

From the posts I think the general desire is to keep as much of the original intact as possible. I would recommend that the users who do not want to see so much grain use the NR tools that are included in their player or monitor. Is that reasonable? In addition to that, it will take consumer education to explain why pictures can be so variable where film grain is concerned, in high definition (this among other things). It would help if the press got involved. Maybe some good educational stories that are positive about the fact we actually now have a medium that can reproduce the grain in the first place.
this is exactly what i was talking about in my post and for that reason believe that the film grain we might end up seeing in some titles would not be what the DPs want or expected; if not, then i say get rid of/reduce the film grain...caveat, not if it will do more bad than good!

people are screaming for preservation of film grain to capture the original intent of the film, but in reality it would appear that film grain of yore is the compression artifact of today...

will spe try out both approaches and screen them for opinion, even if only within the studio itself? that might be a good approach before unleashing all that grain on the public whom would likely not share the "videophile" desire to see the grain which was a limitation of film technology of yore...

/flame suit on /ducking for cover :D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Industry Insiders Q&A Thread: only Questions to insiders please