AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion - Page 99

post #2941 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ooms View Post

its kinda hard focusing on the picture, when one becomes distracted by excessive grain. AND when this grain is so excessive as to literally cover up fine detail afforded by such a sharp transfer as PH. And intentions aside, whenever I get a new movie with horrid grain, I immediately pop in Casino Royale....THIS is what I like. In the case of PH, its has way more grain than even 2001, which is what, 40 years old? It might also be some macro blocking that looks like grain in the case of PH. FF2 almost looks like grain was intentionally added.

2001 was shot 70 mm I believe. EXTREMELY high resolution, and it was brilliantly restored. It's meant to be viewed on gargantuan screens, so it's going to have a much finer grain structure than most films. Its age has little to do with its appearance, except maybe that few films are shot 70 mm anymore.

Pearl Harbor is most likely meant to look period, more like the footage you might capture were you in WWII. This is why no one will ever be happy with Aliens if we get a proper HD transfer. It was meant to look like war footage, so it's rather grainy, except in the rare moments there's really bright light, like from welding torches. But for the most part it's low-light (not even the patented Cameron blue filter day-for-night most of the time) and used film stock for that purpose.
post #2942 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I both accept that 1) "grain" can detract from a title's ability to best show off our displays and projectors in a "demo" sense - the stated purpose of this thread - and 2) it is a legitimate artistic element that can be used to evoke an ambiance that helps tell the story. I am neither a grain-lover, nor a grain-hater no more than I am a lover or hater of texture used in paintings.

Exactly how I feel.
post #2943 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Exactly how I feel.

On the subject of grain, don't you think that many times what people refer to as grain is really compression noise? And I imagine we would all agree that compression noise has no redeeming qualities.
post #2944 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick99 View Post

On the subject of grain, don't you think that many times what people refer to as grain is really compression noise? And I imagine we would all agree that compression noise has no redeeming qualities.

Yes and no. Obviously compression noise has no redeeming qualities, but I don't think that it is common to confuse grain with compression noise. But perhaps I should just speak for myself.
post #2945 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick99 View Post

On the subject of grain, don't you think that many times what people refer to as grain is really compression noise? And I imagine we would all agree that compression noise has no redeeming qualities.

I am somewhat disadvantaged in answering that because I know the difference myself and haven't a clue as to whether others are confused.
post #2946 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Yes and no. Obviously compression noise has no redeeming qualities, but I don't think that it is common to confuse grain with compression noise. But perhaps I should just speak for myself.



Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I am somewhat disadvantaged in answering that because I know the difference myself and haven't a clue as to whether others are confused.

Well, one way to tell is when you see someone say about a particular title that it has a lot of grain and you know that what that title really has is not grain but compression noise. . .
post #2947 of 20367
w
post #2948 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick99 View Post

Well, one way to tell is when you see someone say about a particular title that it has a lot of grain and you know that what that title really has is not grain but compression noise. . .

Honestly, I pretty much skip over posts on this thread talking about grain because most of them are so "out there."
post #2949 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Honestly, I pretty much skip over posts on this thread talking about grain because most of them are so "out there."

I can understand that approach.
post #2950 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Honestly, I pretty much skip over posts on this thread talking about grain because most of them are so "out there."

Exactly.
post #2951 of 20367
Just thinking...maybe we should define the difference between what film grain looks like and compression/digital noise. That might help some folks.
post #2952 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Just thinking...maybe we should define the difference between what film grain looks like and compression/digital noise. That might help some folks.

Are you volunteering for that job?
post #2953 of 20367
Wow,all this is "discussion" about film grain has gone waaaaaay beyond redundent.
This thread is divided into 2 categories.......
Those who want every movie on BR to look absolutley perfect--with no grain,noise,edge enhancement,desaturated colors or soft images regardless of any artistic decisions and intent............
And those(myself included),that care about a quality video presentation but understand and appreciate that the end result,both GOOD and BAD is a direct result of the combined artistic intent MADE by the DIRECTOR,the CINEMATOGRAPHER,the DI/telecine colorist,the compressionist and the STUDIO.......
Some decisions will satisfy the "trained",uncompromising eyes of the "pros" in this thread by offering a MAXIMUM bitrate of 50gbps,maximum sharpness,detail and "HD pop",absolutley no grain or noise AND saturated,vivid colors so it can be placed in TIER 0 and be used as demo material.
Anything else,is a DISTRACTION and unworthy of not only HIGH DEFINITION,but the BLU-RAY format itself!!!!!!!
Same goes for AUDIO,if a movie on BR sounds anything less than reference quality,than it has to be the fact that the disc DOESN'T have a lossless audio track.
Perhaps some of you need to start MAKING YOUR OWN MOVIES!!!!
I would also recommend going to www.theasc.com which is the website for the AMERICAN SOCIETY of CINEMATOGRAPHERS and AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER Magazine to get an education on why a particular movie "LOOKS" the way it does.......From the filmakers themselves and not by somebody watching the BLU-RAY for the first time.
post #2954 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Just thinking...maybe we should define the difference between what film grain looks like and compression/digital noise. That might help some folks.

Do it and put the insert in every BD movie you can. Seriously though. Do it and we can get it placed in the first post maybe.
post #2955 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexg75 View Post

Wow,all this is "discussion" about film grain has gone waaaaaay beyond redundent.

And, except for the fact that you're YELLING, your post hasn't changed that.
post #2956 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

And, except for the fact that you're YELLING, your post hasn't changed that.

Guilty as charged.........
But it is my artistic intent
post #2957 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexg75 View Post

Wow,all this is "discussion" about film grain has gone waaaaaay beyond redundent.
This thread is divided into 2 categories.......
Those who want every movie on BR to look absolutley perfect--with no grain,noise,edge enhancement,desaturated colors or soft images regardless of any artistic decisions and intent............
And those(myself included),that care about a quality video presentation but understand and appreciate that the end result,both GOOD and BAD is a direct result of the combined artistic intent MADE by the DIRECTOR,the CINEMATOGRAPHER,the DI/telecine colorist,the compressionist and the STUDIO.......
Some decisions will satisfy the "trained",uncompromising eyes of the "pros" in this thread by offering a MAXIMUM bitrate of 50gbps,maximum sharpness,detail and "HD pop",absolutley no grain or noise AND saturated,vivid colors so it can be placed in TIER 0 and be used as demo material.
Anything else,is a DISTRACTION and unworthy of not only HIGH DEFINITION,but the BLU-RAY format itself!!!!!!!
Same goes for AUDIO,if a movie on BR sounds anything less than reference quality,than it has to be the fact that the disc DOESN'T have a lossless audio track.
Perhaps some of you need to start MAKING YOUR OWN MOVIES!!!!
I would also recommend going to www.theasc.com which is the website for the AMERICAN SOCIETY of CINEMATOGRAPHERS and AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER Magazine to get an education on why a particular movie "LOOKS" the way it does.......From the filmakers themselves and not by somebody watching the BLU-RAY for the first time.

/discussion

can we move along now?
post #2958 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexg75 View Post

Some decisions will satisfy the "trained",uncompromising eyes of the "pros" in this thread by offering a MAXIMUM bitrate of 50gbps,maximum sharpness,detail and "HD pop",absolutley no grain or noise AND saturated,vivid colors so it can be placed in TIER 0 and be used as demo material.
Anything else,is a DISTRACTION and unworthy of not only HIGH DEFINITION,but the BLU-RAY format itself!!!!!!!
Same goes for AUDIO,if a movie on BR sounds anything less than reference quality,than it has to be the fact that the disc DOESN'T have a lossless audio track.
Perhaps some of you need to start MAKING YOUR OWN MOVIES!!!!

I don't believe anyone that expressed a view against grain claimed to be a "trained pro"; we were simply saying we didn't like grain, period. So, please don't misrepresent us and make us out to be elitists who are guilty of speaking condescendingly.
post #2959 of 20367
Ok Crank just came in the mail. wow, utterly amazing. The clarity, sharpness and pop is amazing. I can almost smell the sweat oozing out of Statham face in the frequent close ups. I understand it was shot with a 1080p/24 Digital Camera. I like this PQ even more than Casino Royale. I guess its just a generation gap. I now realize that I 100%, unequivocally prefer the look of movies like Crank over movies shot with film. The fact I grew up with video games and continue to be an image quality whore (when it comes to video games I need minimum 8xAA 16xAF or I don't even bother, seriously) may have something to do with my brains preference for digitally shot movies. If I had a good camera I would post some screens, they look even sharper than what viper had posted in the BD screenshot thread (which were already very impressive)

and alexg75, you might try not speaking in absolutes.
post #2960 of 20367
Quote:


On the subject of grain, don't you think that many times what people refer to as grain is really compression noise? And I imagine we would all agree that compression noise has no redeeming qualities.

To me it's usually not hard to tell the difference. Grain has a clear pattern to it -- you're seeing the makeup of the film, and the makeup of the film doesn't change. On the other hand, digital noise is random and ever-changing, from scene to scene, shot to shot, or even frame to frame. So your eye tends to get used to grain but not digital noise.
post #2961 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by djoberg View Post

I don't believe anyone that expressed a view against grain claimed to be a "trained pro"; we were simply saying we didn't like grain, period. So, please don't misrepresent us and make us out to be elitists who are guilty of speaking condescendingly.

that wasn't my intent at all........
everyone has an opinion and preferences.
I was callling out those who come off as experts on every aspect of why and how something SHOULD look like based SOLELY on their preferences......and worse of all,misinformation.
post #2962 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ooms View Post

Ok Crank just came in the mail. wow, utterly amazing. The clarity, sharpness and pop is amazing. I can almost smell the sweat oozing out of Statham face in the frequent close ups. I understand it was shot with a 1080p/24 Digital Camera. I like this PQ even more than Casino Royale. I guess its just a generation gap. I now realize that I 100%, unequivocally prefer the look of movies like Crank over movies shot with film. The fact I grew up with video games and continue to be an image quality whore (when it comes to video games I need minimum 8xAA 16xAF or I don't even bother, seriously) may have something to do with my brains preference for digitally shot movies. If I had a good camera I would post some screens, they look even sharper than what viper had posted in the BD screenshot thread (which were already very impressive)

and alexg75, you might try not speaking in absolutes.

I agree with you on CRANK.
It is amazing looking,no doubt.
But you can't expect every and any BR to look like that.
Hey I love how animation looks on BR,especially PIXAR,but I don't expect everything else to look the same nor do I feel that it should.
post #2963 of 20367
I've watched several Blu-ray movies recently, so I will give quick mini reviews on them:

War:

Ok, but certainly nothing special. Average detail, decent contrast. I remember thinking low Tier 2........which is exactly where it already is.

The Invasion:

A bit better than War, but still a mid Tier 2 title, which is not ranked on the list yet. Nicole Kidman looks great, but man, what a terrible movie.

The Simpsons:

I am a big fan of The Simpsons, and I certainly enjoyed the movie, but the EE is certainly there. It is minor compared to what you see on DVD, but again, there is no doubt that it is present. I did NOT see the ringing that others complain of though. Otherwise this title looked pretty good.....but I would move it down to mid Tier 1 instead of top Tier 1 where it is now.

King of California:

Please do NOT waste your time or money on this stupid movie! Not only was the movie horrible, but the PQ was mid Tier 3 quality at best.
post #2964 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

The Simpsons:

I am a big fan of The Simpsons, and I certainly enjoyed the movie, but the EE is certainly there. It is minor compared to what you see on DVD, but again, there is no doubt that it is present. I did NOT see the ringing that others complain of though. Otherwise this title looked pretty good.....but I would move it down to mid Tier 1 instead of top Tier 1 where it is now.

Aside from the small amount of EE(or ringing on it because some have argued it does not meet the classic definition of EE) I thought Simpsons was flawless.
post #2965 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger View Post

Aside from the small amount of EE(or ringing on it because some have argued it does not meet the classic definition of EE) I thought Simpsons was flawless.

Agreed,I for one am not bothered by small amount of EE.
Everything else is as good as it gets.
post #2966 of 20367
I just finished watching "THE BRAVE ONE" and think it should be upper to mid tier 1.
The softness that was mentioned a few times here in this thread is all photographic and not something that happened in the transfer.
It's a solid looking presentation throughout and the movie itself was decent.
FTR,I don't think anything could have been improved with a higher bitrate.
Panasonic 770U 42inch 1080p Plasma
viewed at 8.5 feet
Sony BDP-S300 BR player
post #2967 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Just thinking...maybe we should define the difference between what film grain looks like and compression/digital noise. That might help some folks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick99 View Post

Are you volunteering for that job?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drag'nGT View Post

Do it and put the insert in every BD movie you can. Seriously though. Do it and we can get it placed in the first post maybe.

I'll see what I can do. Maybe I'll type up a little description of both. Maybe a couple of screenshots comparing both would help too, though I'm not good with those.
post #2968 of 20367
I viewed Robocop tonight. I agree with its Tier 3 placement, but I think it looked pretty good for an 80's catalog title. As has been mentioned before, the nature of the film stock used on many movies during the 80s makes it hard for these movies to have eye candy appeal. Speaking of film grain - lots of it in this one - but no complaints. The visible film grain kept sharpness and detail intact and gave this a very filmlike look in general. It felt as if the original look of this movie was preserved. This is by far the best I have ever seen this movie as it blows away the previous anamorphic DVD I used own. Most notably, the color production looked very natural and much better than ever before. Blacks and shadows were solid, as well. Overall, I was quite pleased.
post #2969 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger View Post

Aside from the small amount of EE(or ringing on it because some have argued it does not meet the classic definition of EE) I thought Simpsons was flawless.

To me, that is a rather important "aside".

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexg75 View Post

Agreed,I for one am not bothered by small amount of EE.
Everything else is as good as it gets.

I've been spoiled by the Pixar movies which have more of a three dimensional effect. The Simpsons looks flat by comparison. Completely different styles, I know..

As far as "not being bothered by a small amount of EE", I think you should be. This should have been a flawless title, and would have been, but for the idiotic use of EE. Why would anyone use EE on a frickin' ANIMATED title? It only makes the PQ worse, without any advantages whatsoever.
post #2970 of 20367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

To me, that is a rather important "aside".



I've been spoiled by the Pixar movies which have more of a three dimensional effect. The Simpsons looks flat by comparison. Completely different styles, I know..

As far as "not being bothered by a small amount of EE", I think you should be. This should have been a flawless title, and would have been, but for the idiotic use of EE. Why would anyone use EE on a frickin' ANIMATED title? It only makes the PQ worse, without any advantages whatsoever.

Agreed. One of the things that always had excited me about HDM/Blu-ray before it was released was the idea we wouldn't have to deal with EE anymore like we did with SD DVD. I was wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion