AVS Forum banner

21 - 40 of 118 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,536 Posts
Looks stellar to me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
The DVD and the HDTV versions are grainy as hell (not that I'm complaining). Whatever new DNR tools they used for the blu-ray works very, very well. In fact the final result looks much better than Lowry's method. The "Lowry look" we call it.


Laser Pacific is one company to watch. Does help when Stevie is actively invloved
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts
Looks fantastic. My one complaint is that while I remember liking it, this movie wouldn't be my first choice to get such treatment while others get shafted
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
The DVD looks like its being viewed through a dirty fish tank compared to the blu ray. Definitely picking this one up.


-Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,040 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/18513063


Definite grain reduction on this set of screengrabs but overall the positives far outweigh the negatives. Fine detail galore.

That's awesome.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,616 Posts
Its on like Donkey Kong! attention studios! if your going to go to the effort of messing with a release, can we have more like this and none like Universal's latest
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,485 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/18513063


Definite grain reduction on this set of screengrabs but overall the positives far outweigh the negatives. Fine detail galore.

That was only shot with DNR throughout the whole movie oddly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #30

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/18513197


Uh, remember Elf ? They did that one but the DNR might've been added later by the New Line's wax department.

Oh **** they did that one
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
55 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/18513063


Definite grain reduction on this set of screengrabs but overall the positives far outweigh the negatives. Fine detail galore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon /forum/post/18513109


The DVD and the HDTV versions are grainy as hell (not that I'm complaining). Whatever new DNR tools they used for the blu-ray works very, very well. In fact the final result looks much better than Lowry's method. The "Lowry look" we call it.

Did you guys read the attached article? Allow me to quote excerpts...

Quote:
The look of the movie, as seen in theaters,was further enhanced by utilizing Technicolor's ENR print process - a technique that increases contrast, decreases saturation and increases grain by retaining silver in the final prints.


Fast forward to 2009 - technology has advanced to a point where Minority Report can be re-mastered at 4K resolution using the original negative (because the ENR process was only applied to the prints).

Not "grain reduced" and not DNR. The transfer was stuck from the original negative which is a very fine grain element, as in, almost no visible grain on small screens. Those shots that Kaminski wanted more grain visible, it would have been added digitally. Previous transfer was obviously struck from an ENR element.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
I watched the ABC broadcast its much, much grainier than the blu-ray version.


So which version has added "grain"?



Just speculating



Anyways it looks damn good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
The BR is the clear winner, be it US or EU, and some how the screen caps have captured that. Who would of thought.


Great Job again Xylon, and thanks... for making my wallet somewhat lighter.


Best Regards

KvE
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,616 Posts

Quote:
Fast forward to 2009 - technology has advanced to a point where Minority Report can be re-mastered at 4K resolution using the original negative (because the ENR process was only applied to the prints).

Dont get me worng, I love how the disc looks in the shots.

But this quote stinks of the Lucas-alikes that mess with everything
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 /forum/post/18513324


Dont get me worng, I love how the disc looks in the shots.

But this quote stinks of the Lucas-alikes that mess with everything

What do you mean
If you remaster something, its generally good to go back to the highest quality source you have and digitize it at the highest quality.

Scanning the ENRd release prints would look godawful, and they can emulate that look digitally.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,616 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 /forum/post/18513357


What do you mean
If you remaster something, its generally good to go back to the highest quality source you have and digitize it at the highest quality.

Scanning the ENRd release prints would look godawful, and they can emulate that look digitally.

Its not the same look as the shots show
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 /forum/post/18513365


Its not the same look as the shots show

I might be mistaken, but I believe release prints are used as a last resort for video mastering. No way to know if the old version was "correct".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
975 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon /forum/post/18513109


The DVD and the HDTV versions are grainy as hell (not that I'm complaining). Whatever new DNR tools they used for the blu-ray works very, very well.

There is no grain on the DVD and HDTV versions. There is just a mess of artifacts that once were grain that the encoders couldn't cope with.
There is fine, far more natural looking grain on the BD versions (although there are artifacts in some of your shots as well). Judging from the screenshots, only a judicious amount of grain management was applied to aid the encoders, as it should be.


Still wondering about the ghost lines on the edge of the black bar on the US version though. Did you notice any signs of ringing in other high-contrast edges?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/18513298


Uh, no. The grain structure is clearly flattened in that shot compared to the rest. Odd.

The point is that the grain was not artificially removed after the fact, as with DNR. Rather, they went back to a source (the original negative) from earlier in the chain, where the grain had not yet been added.
 
21 - 40 of 118 Posts
Top