AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi Software Forum :D.


Is it just me or is The Matrix DVD very grainy. I never noticed on my crappy 27" TV, but on my HT1000 I notice it. Maybe my settings are wrong, but other movies look great. Can someone confirm that The Matrix looks like crap?


Phil


p.s. sorry if this topic has been hashed to death or something. I did search.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by LAracer
Hi Software Forum :D.


Is it just me or is The Matrix DVD very grainy. I never noticed on my crappy 27" TV, but on my HT1000 I notice it. Maybe my settings are wrong, but other movies look great. Can someone confirm that The Matrix looks like crap?


Phil


p.s. sorry if this topic has been hashed to death or something. I did search.
No, I don't think your eyes are deceiving you.

This DVD looked like 'crap'(as you put it) at 480,

and even an upcon to 1080i helps only to a degree in

smoothening it out a bit - but it's still a "crappy"

transfer as I see it. This does illustrate however,

I think, that really bad DVDs cannot be 'resurrected'

after an upcon' to 720p or 1080i; some others in that

category are the W/S side of 'Disclosure', 'Mad Max

Beyond Thunderdome', and most all of the older

MGM transfers which are atrocious.


Milt R. Smith
[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,446 Posts
The movie is grainy. The movie is greenish. If it weren't grainy and greenish, it wouldn't be The Matrix.


I guess you haven't seen either of the two Matrix movies in a theater. They are supposed to look like that. It's intentional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
Reloaded was a grainy mess in the theater. I don't remember the print quality of the frist one though. Probably the same. Why couldn't these movies have the depth and sharpness of the print of Blade I saw a month ago? Now that was excellent photography done by masters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
i agree with you kram, i just don't get this "intentional" graininess...don't understand why someone would intentionally want such an atrocious, sub-standard image when they can have eye-candy, like Blade II.


sure, Matrix was a GREAT movie, and i love owning it on dvd...but wouldn't it just be so much nicer if it was a sharp image? i can somewhat understand the use of the greenish, almost monochromatic color scheme -- kinda like the color palate which corresponds to the digital world (0's and 1's --- like black and white almost)....


which brings me to another point, why are dvd's such hit and miss?? why are we constantly having to talk about and discuss various transfers, grain, edge enhancement, halos, inaccurate color palates, etc, etc...ad naseum? why don't the studios that release these things have some sort of standard? some sort of "reference" that EACH and ALL their dvd's have to meet in order to be released?


but, alas, us HT enthusiast are vastly outnumbered by the Joe-Six-Packs who don't care about such things (but to be honest to them, you mostly cannot make out such image problems when viewing on your average 27" RCA crt tv)...and sadly, even if we were to demand such standards, the studios simply wouldn't care...(take the edge enhancement issue for instance, despite numerous complaints, has anything come to fruition regarding getting rid of EE? nada...)


anyway, sorry for the rant...back to the topic at hand...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
Dvds are a hit and miss like any other format, like cds and laserdiscs. Only a few mastering facilities have consistent quality (ie Laser Pacific).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by slateef
i agree with you kram, i just don't get this "intentional" graininess...don't understand why someone would intentionally want such an atrocious, sub-standard image when they can have eye-candy, like Blade II.


which brings me to another point, why are dvd's such hit and miss?? why are we constantly having to talk about and discuss various transfers, grain, edge enhancement, halos, inaccurate color palates, etc, etc...ad naseum? why don't the studios that release these things have some sort of standard? some sort of "reference" that EACH and ALL their dvd's have to meet in order to be released?
Well, I for one have no problem at all with the decision to add some style to the way a movie is photographed. It keeps all these movies from looking the same, especially when you have so many of the same stars and directors over and over again.


As far as consistantcy with DVD's, keep in mind that the disc is only as good as the source it comes from. Very few new releases of movies have any real issues at all, it's the older movies that require restoration that are hit and miss. For the most part, I thing the studios do a pretty good job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
I believe Blade was shot with anamorphic lenses and The Matrix was shot Super 35. Super 35 has less resolution than anamorphic photography. It is possible that a film shot Super 35 could look more impressive than one shot anamorphic because of the variables (film stock, speed of the printer, show print vs. general release print, etc), but anamorphic will consistently beat out Super 35 in my opinion. The Matrix on 35mm film was grainy. Sometimes this "grainy" look helps make the CGI fx look more "seamless", like in Minority Report.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
813 Posts
I'm surprised to hear people trashing the video quality of this DVD. Still to this date I use it as a demo piece for both audio and video, even though it's an "old" DVD. What scene in particular are we talking about here ? I can see how a Minority Report/AI might cause a few ruffles, but I honestly don't see it on Matrix (intentional green hue aside).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thanks for all the replies


Well, I knew the green was intentional (it's explained in the commentary, although it is pretty obvious). The graininess I didn't know was intentional. I did see both "Matrices" at the theater, but I didn't notice the grain (which doesn't mean it wasn't there). I'll feel better about it after seeing this discussion.



LMDA1: The first scene in particular. Look at anything in shadow. It seems to be crawling with colors. In other scenes it's not so obvious, mostly because there's so much action to draw your attention away I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
I don't think it was the grain that disappointed me the most with the photography of Matrix Reloaded. It was the softness and lack of fine details. I'm sure it will look fine on dvd though but the theatrical prints really sucked. This is a movie that begged to be shown in DLP but didn't get the chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Some thoughts on film grain from a casual movie lover.


** Disclaimer - there are no artsy bones in my body, I'm an EE that does software for a living and believe the artsy side of my brain is completely missing... **


RobertR - Grain is Absolute Evil? no. Distracting? yes. Unnecessary? in my opinion, yes.


I consider the existance of film grain to be an inherant deficiency in the recording medium, and to specifically enhance it, and embrace it makes little sense to me. For me, personally, Minority Report was almost unwatchable.


Then to spend the bandwith required to compress that digitally...


I'm sure there are those that will feel I don't have the 'artistic impression' in mind, but hey, I like my movies clean, and please refer to the disclaimer above.


Do comparisons to other 'art'. Do audio recording studios _regularly_ add pops, clicks, wow, flutter, and other audio anomolies to their masters so they can be artistic? I'm talking regularly and are they heralded as being elite productions?


It seems to me that some movie lovers, and many movie makers, have embraced an inherant flaw, and called it artsy, and desirable. I hold out hope that this trend will fade away over the coming years.


Let the flaming begin :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,446 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Davis
I believe Blade was shot with anamorphic lenses and The Matrix was shot Super 35.
While this is true and sometimes noticeable in a theatrical setting, it is irrelevant when it comes time to master the film for DVD. Both Super35 and anamorphic photography have way more resolution than DVD is capable of displaying.


In fact, oftentimes a Super35 movie will look a lot sharper on video than an anamorphically-photographed movie, because Super35 allows the filmmakers to use lenses with tighter focus and more depth of field. Whereas with anamorphic lenses you can't get too close to your subject without distortion, and they traditionally have that 'look' where the background of shots will be slightly out of focus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
I suppose all photographers/cinematographers should shoot using the same equipment, media and techniques and never be so foolish to think that these might be creative choices to achieve a particular look, mood, etc.


I guess there is only one correct way to shoot -- no grain, ultra sharp focus, high contrast, punchy colors, neutral gray exposure. There's probably only one correct way to light and compose a shot too.


Please excuse my sarcasm but I really don't understand some people's reactions to the filming choices made by a film's director and/or cinematographer or to a DVD that attempts to be faithful to those choices.


If a DVD changed this attribute of a film, IMO that would be as objectionable as if they re-edited the film, re-scored the film, etc.


If someone has a problem with this attribute of the film, their gripe is with the film, not the DVD, in which case it is clearly subject to personal opinion just like every other attribute of the film such as casting, directing, acting, writing, plot, costumes, sets, etc.


Personally, I don't think every film should be shot the same way anymore than every film should have the same script or actor.


PS


Grain could be regarded as a limitation of film but it is a characteristic that has long been intentionally used by photographers/cinematographers to enhance a desired effect. Is black & white film flawed because it doesn't reproduce color? Film varies in graininess, color, contrast, etc. and film is chosen for a particular project based on these characteristics. For digital images, these characteristics are also manipulated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Matrix reloaded dvd reviews are popping up all over today due to studio restriction of reviews popping up bfore october 1st.


IGN has an review up. got a 10 out of 10 on video.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
LMDA1: can i ask what you're using as a monitor to watch this? a crt tv, rptv, or fptv...if the latter, what size screen? this does make a tremendous difference...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Josh Z
While this is true and sometimes noticeable in a theatrical setting, it is irrelevant when it comes time to master the film for DVD. Both Super35 and anamorphic photography have way more resolution than DVD is capable of displaying.


In fact, oftentimes a Super35 movie will look a lot sharper on video than an anamorphically-photographed movie, because Super35 allows the filmmakers to use lenses with tighter focus and more depth of field. Whereas with anamorphic lenses you can't get too close to your subject without distortion, and they traditionally have that 'look' where the background of shots will be slightly out of focus.
That's a good point. DVD's resolution is compromised with 2.35:1 films, compared to 1.85:1 films because while movies shot anamorphically have higher resolution, anamorphic DVD's don't use 1/3 of the potential vertical resolution DVD has. 1.85:1 movies don't have this problem.


To make a long story short, I think The Matrix could look a lot better on DVD. Before anyone misconstrues my comment as having thrown down the gauntlet, remember that there is a good chance we will see a new transfer on DVD. If that is true, we will know soon enough how much better a job Warner can do since the original Fall 1999 release of the DVD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Kram Sacul
I don't think it was the grain that disappointed me the most with the photography of Matrix Reloaded. It was the softness and lack of fine details. I'm sure it will look fine on dvd though but the theatrical prints really sucked. This is a movie that begged to be shown in DLP but didn't get the chance.


Reloaded was shown in IMAX in some places. This is even better than DLP. It looked amazing. I saw the IMAX version 4 times and I was blown away everytime. Revolution will be released on IMAX at the same time as the regular version. Try find an imax theater around your way when it comes. You won't regret it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
813 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by slateef
LMDA1: can i ask what you're using as a monitor to watch this? a crt tv, rptv, or fptv...if the latter, what size screen? this does make a tremendous difference...
slateef,


The images are projected via an HT1000 (calibrated via Colorfacts), fed XGA via DVI from a Bravo D1, unto a Stewart Studiotek 1.3 (84"), all in a dedicated darkened room . Perhaps I should have expanded a little, that although I agree 'The Matrix' is far from the reference DVD, it certainly holds up rather well. Yes, there are certain scenes that look rather soft, but all in all I think it looks darn' good (grain being the least of my complaints on this transfer).
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top