What's new

Is it too much to ask... (1 Viewer)

Vern Dias

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 27, 1999
Messages
353
Real Name
Theodore V Dias
There is a really simple test for DNR: When viewing an HD source, look at someones face in a close up....Do you see a normal looking skin with pores, visible eybrow hairs, and in the case of long hair, individual strands of hair?

If the face is missing the skin details and looks inhuman or plastic, then DNR was used to excess.

Simple to check assuming that your equipment is up to snuff and capable of passing HF info.

Vern
 

Jim_K

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2000
Messages
10,087

Probably because I'm a dick? or just had too much caffeine? dunno......pick one.

It's apparent that I have a fundamental approach to watching HD media that greatly differs from some others. But it's really not worth getting into so I'll leave it at that.

And just so I don't get burned at stake by the angry villagers - FWIW, no I'm not a grain hater and I don't like excessive DNR when I notice it but I'm afraid that crusade should have started long ago and that it's just too late.
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
7,871
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
As long as good film elements exist, it's never too late. Sunset Boulevard was brought up earlier in this thread as an example of where all film grain had been removed. One must also consider the circumstances under which all the grain was removed. Go back and read RAH's article, as it is still online. The high frequency information to which he refers in the case of Sunset Boulevard is lost to the ravages of time, as no fine grain materials exist, so the technicians were dealing with two sets of limitations: the limitations of the source material and the limitations of technology. Hopefully that's not the case with Patton and The Longest Day, as both of those films are newer than Sunset and one would hope that Fox has good archival materials.

And that is precisely why when RAH was working on the recent restoration of the Godfather films, he was working in 4K and the restoration was outputted to film to create archival elements. You need good elements to do a good transfer.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
I saw Patton about five years ago at the Samuel Goldwyn theater, and I can attest that the print was superb, with gorgeous fine-grain detail.
 

Michel_Hafner

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Messages
1,350
It's more complicated than that. DNR = soft/lacking detail is not a correct equivalance. Neither does soft/lack of detail imply DNR nor does DNR imply soft/lack of detail. They often go together, but they must not.
Other causes of softness and lack of detail are:
- use of diffusion filters on the camera
- focusing issues on the original negative
- amount of motion blur
- digital low pass filtering during post processing or other digital manipulations which are not DNR
- compression artifacts
On the other hand it's possible to apply DNR and keep the image sharp and with fine detail, just less grainy/noisy. It's not easy, but it can be done.
 

Vern Dias

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 27, 1999
Messages
353
Real Name
Theodore V Dias
Michael, yes it's possibly not DNR, but:

- use of diffusion filters on the camera - Not on every shot for every actor/actress. Possible for older female leads or to set a mood in a specific sequence. Very rare for the whole movie.

- focusing issues on the original negative - Again not on every shot. The negative is not a single element, but composed of many different lengths of film shot at different times with different cameras and stored as individual 10 or 20 minute reels. No way there would be a consistent focusing issue for an entire film. Any interpositives or subseqent generations would contribute there own film grain which should still be visible.

- amount of motion blur - Again not on every shot. Closeups of faces rarely contain much motion.

- digital low pass filtering during post processing or other digital manipulations which are not DNR - True, but it wouldn't likely be done to any great degree when the result is intended for projection on a 40' theater screen. Certainly the intended result would not be to make faces look like they are composed of plastic.

- compression artifacts - Possible, not likely on HD media such as BD and HD DVD. It takes extremely aggressive over compression to completely destroy fine detail, which will also produce other more obvious artifacts such as macroblocking. Granted, it's possible on DVD, though.

Vern
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce


This is true unless they chose to intentionally shoot with older lenses such as was the case on Die Hard. They used older Panavision lenses that didn't have the modern optical coatings so that the lenses would flair when lights were in the frame. As a result Die Hard is also somewhat softer than other films of the same vintage IE the late 80s.

Doug
 

Michel_Hafner

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Messages
1,350
Who knows why they do stuff. Milla in "Ultra Violet" looks weird. Anyway, my point is that lacking detail AND plastic look may well be caused by DNR while lacking detail alone might or might not. As additional criterion it's necessary to also look for specific artifacts when textures are in motion. Once these are visible then use of DNR is almost certain. Things can look fine till movement happens. It depends on the kind of DNR employed.
For example "Batman Begins" as I remember it has some softness but no DNR artifacts so I don't think it was (strongly) DNRed. Maybe low pass filtered a bit.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,535
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top