AVS Forum banner

41 - 60 of 745 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner /forum/post/12195518


This is a list of titles on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray who have been verified to show EE/ringing (edge enhancement, sharpening) and/or DNR (digital noise/grain reduction) processing and/or aliasing and/or ITC issues (incorrect progressive picture from film source).


This list is for people who know what it is, what it looks like and have decided that they don't like it and want to avoid discs having (a lot of) it.


Unfortunately I'm not aware of sources elsewhere on the net that tell us if there is DNR and/or EE etc. with any kind of accuracy and reliability, title by title. This list is supposed to be such a source.

First, I agree for the need for a list like this . . . . as it helps keep the studio's collective feet to the fire. If nobody complains then they'll keep

putting out mediocre discs . . . . they are not altruists.


Second, I agree with the majority of listings here.


I would like to inject one thought into the discourse;


SOMETIMES HALOS ARE JUST HALOS . . . .


. . . . which is to say, sometimes they are not an electronic issue

and thereby sometimes not a wholly accurate indicator of the quality of a transfer.


Halos occur optically in nature around boundary areas of high contrast.


Our eyes can add halos, camera lenses can add halos,

diffusion filters DEFINITELY add halos, bad films prints add halos,

bad telecines add halos . . . and OF COURSE electronic edge enhancement

and white level push can add halos.


The worst case scenario is a combination of the above . . . . EE makes it

all much worse but again, there are often other culprits as well.


DNR can make optical halos -- IE halos ON THE FILM -- worse by

removing edge sharpness that could make the halo less defined . .


. . . and keep in mind that in general compression does not like

edges or contrast and tends to add noise around them.


So.


SOMETIMES HALOS ARE JUST HALOS . . . . not necessarily

an electronic problem.


Again, this is a really helpful list and I have used feedback like this to avoid buying certain discs . . . . I would add to please keep in mind the perspective that sometimes halos are naturally occurring optical phenomena . . . and sometimes halos are added for artistic intent . . . and sometimes

your eye adds halos.


These questions always want to asked AND ANSWERED by the studios but


SOMETIMES HALOS JUST AIN'T A PROBLEM. . . .


. . . so let's just watch the movie.


-30-


My veracity to comment comes from having worked in the camera department of one of the older films on this list. Alas, it is not as fabulous

a transfer as I would have wished . . . . but it does reasonably represent

the sense of the look of the film. The film used double fog filters thruout

-- a combo of a fog effect and a diffusion filter -- which definitely added

halos. The entire film was also post flashed which tends to add a bit of grain in the shadows.


Alas, another thing to keep in mind is that FILM IS FILM AND DIGITAL IS DIGITAL . . . . . and they don't always play well together.


I saw a 70 mm blowup of this film direct from the original 35 mm anamorphic negatives -- not from an IP -- and THAT my friends was

amazing. Yes, there were halos but they looked just great
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
515 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/12267992


Title: The Departed (2006)

Studio: Warner

Disc: BRD, HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Chapter 33

Comments: Vertical wallpaper stripes disappear unnaturally when the camera pans. DNR is thought to be on the DI and not a compression issue.

URLs: 1a / 1b , 2a / 2b

I've watched this scene many times, there's nothing "unnatural" about it. The camera is moving, and the background details are getting blurred as often happens during camera movement.


Vincent
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
515 Posts
I'm guessing you're talking about THE DEER HUNTER and I agree, I don't see any "EE" in the screen shots linked.


Vincent

Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincelluloid /forum/post/12271474


...


My veracity to comment comes from having worked in the camera department of one of the older films on this list. Alas, it is not as fabulous

a transfer as I would have wished . . . . but it does reasonably represent

the sense of the look of the film. The film used double fog filters thruout

-- a combo of a fog effect and a diffusion filter -- which definitely added

halos. The entire film was also post flashed which tends to add a bit of grain in the shadows.


Alas, another thing to keep in mind is that FILM IS FILM AND DIGITAL IS DIGITAL . . . . . and they don't always play well together.


I saw a 70 mm blowup of this film direct from the original 35 mm anamorphic negatives -- not from an IP -- and THAT my friends was

amazing. Yes, there were halos but they looked just great
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira /forum/post/12273056


I've watched this scene many times, there's nothing "unnatural" about it. The camera is moving, and the background details are getting blurred as often happens during camera movement.

They're not blurring, they're disappearing into mush. The effect is very smeary and not like photography at all.


As for The Deer Hunter slight EE is noticable at the top of these frames: http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/hddvd/The%20Deer%20Hunter/AnyC02807.jpg , http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/hddvd/Th.../AnyC02818.jpg . It doesn't ruin the transfer but it's there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,936 Posts
Discussion Starter #45

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/12276325


They're not blurring, they're disappearing into mush. The effect is very smeary and not like photography at all.

I agree with that after checking the scene.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,936 Posts
Discussion Starter #46

Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincelluloid /forum/post/12271474


SOMETIMES HALOS ARE JUST HALOS . . . .

. . . . which is to say, sometimes they are not an electronic issue

and thereby sometimes not a wholly accurate indicator of the quality of a transfer.

Yes. So everybody is welcome to discuss specific cases and dispute current findings preferably with direct digital screen shots of telling examples.

Especially insiders involved with the transfer in question can contribute valuable information if they are inclined to do so.

Quote:
I saw a 70 mm blowup of this film direct from the original 35 mm anamorphic negatives -- not from an IP -- and THAT my friends was

amazing. Yes, there were halos but they looked just great

My main criterion for judging a transfer is anyway if it looks like film when it's made from a film master. So first you need to be aware of how film looks (and it can look many ways, especially if digital components are baked into the 'film' look via DI), then how digital problems look, and finally separate the two layers from each other which is indeed often not easy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,204 Posts
How about Elizabeth?. Just watched it last night. PQ is excellent, consistent and nothing too distracting.


There has got to be some recent Universal titles that dont have EE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
How recent? Their newer titles generally look outstanding mostly because their DIs/transfers have been on state of the art equipment. It's the older catalog stuff that is really iffy because Universal seems to be unwilling to do new HD transfers. Slackers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,846 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/12277338


How recent? Their newer titles generally look outstanding mostly because their DIs/transfers have been on state of the art equipment. It's the older catalog stuff that is really iffy because Universal seems to be unwilling to do new HD transfers. Slackers.

So, what's the excuse for the appearance of The Italian Job.

Hint, you might find it somewhere in this interview.
http://www.cameraguild.com/interview...transcript.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,846 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner /forum/post/12276600


Especially insiders involved with the transfer in question can contribute valuable information if they are inclined to do so.

Sorry michel, this aint TIG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,936 Posts
Discussion Starter #52

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon /forum/post/12276663


How about Elizabeth?. Just watched it last night. PQ is excellent, consistent and nothing too distracting.

There has got to be some recent Universal titles that dont have EE.

Pride and Prejudice?

Elizabeth is pretty good but still obvious EE at times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,403 Posts
someone should confirm this, but


Title: Liar Liar (1997)

Studio: Universal

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticeable EE ringing throughout film. Horrible looking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,936 Posts
Discussion Starter #57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man /forum/post/12281099


Only if one is an anonymous poster.


I thought you already knew that.

I know people usually try hard to not talk badly about the work of others, if they talk at all. Omerta.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,936 Posts
Discussion Starter #58

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-A-G-L-E-S /forum/post/12279319


So does this mean these are all movies you will not watch?

No. First I watch movies in the cinema too. Second one can rent or borrow. I try to not buy substandard stuff if I find out in time. Buying 'crap' promotes 'crap'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner /forum/post/12276600


My main criterion for judging a transfer is anyway if it looks like film when it's made from a film master. So first you need to be aware of how film looks (and it can look many ways, especially if digital components are baked into the 'film' look via DI), then how digital problems look, and finally separate the two layers from each other which is indeed often not easy.

Bless you.


That post might be the single most perceptive, sensible and BALANCED -- and thereby HELPFUL -- statement regarding film transfers that I have read on this site.



In the spirit of full disclosure -- my display is a 9 inch CRT front projector - 106" screen -- which is much less

cranky about EE.


I would go so far to say that much EE artifacting is a result of fixed pixel displays . . which is NOT to say that it is the FAULT of

fixed pixel displays; it is made WORSE by fixed pixel and this is now a fixed pixel world.


Further, and from painful personal experience, I have found that early in the days of HD mastering CRT monitors

were the only thing available and we all used EE with relative impunity cuz we didn't see it artifacting on direct feed CRT. After a couple of

disasters showed up on fixed pixel displays I started using a fixed pixel monitor along with the CRT and, surprise,

using less EE . . . . and this was all for broadcast and soon after we found even MORE hidden artifacting disasters when stuff started getting compressed for DVD and the internet . . . . now most everybody will also take a look at the signal thru

real time compression to avoid problems.




Again, thanks "mhafner"


-30-






Go figure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
515 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/12276325


They're not blurring, they're disappearing into mush. The effect is very smeary and not like photography at all.


As for The Deer Hunter slight EE is noticable at the top of these frames: http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/hddvd/The%20Deer%20Hunter/AnyC02807.jpg , http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/hddvd/Th.../AnyC02818.jpg . It doesn't ruin the transfer but it's there.

Whatever the cause, it's not an artifact of the transfer/HD compression, which I thought was the point of this thread- to point out compression and/or transfer flaws. This "problem" (which I personally still think looks like normal background blurring due to the camera movement myself) is also evident on the standard-definition DVD release, and also on the Russian PAL DVD which I have. The Russian DVD is notable because it's a completely separate transfer, having been mastered to 16:9 PAL from an actual 35mm anamorphic print (oval cigarette burns at the reel changes and all) as opposed to the DI, and it shows the EXACT SAME "disappearing into mush" of the verticle stripes on the wall as the HD-DVD and region 1 standard-definition DVDs. So clearly, this "error" was evident on the actual 35mm film prints, and thus must have also been present in the original DI used to create said prints and the domestic HD-DVD and DVD versions of the film.


Re: THE DEER HUNTER, sorry but I don't see any "EE" in those screen shots. If there's anything there that resembles "EE", I'm going with captaincelluloid's explanation. I don't think it's a transfer artifact at all.


Vincent
 
41 - 60 of 745 Posts
Top