You know Peter Jackson would pay big bucks for that lost sequence. Where have you been hiding it?Originally Posted by Joseph DeMartino
You know. The infamous "lost beaver sequence"
You know Peter Jackson would pay big bucks for that lost sequence. Where have you been hiding it?Originally Posted by Joseph DeMartino
You know. The infamous "lost beaver sequence"
I agree, but I'm not sure we are seeing a true comparison. I am assuming the SD capture is at 480 and the HD at 1080. So with the image sizes matching their respective resolutions, this is like comparing a 32" TV playing the SD version next to a 72" TV playing the HD version. That is not how I would compare the two at home. I would be comparing the SD version upscaled to 1080 on a 92" screen against an HD native 1080 on a 92" screen. Using this approach I would expect to see more of a difference in detail between the two then I see in the way they are currently presented. Do others think DVDBeaver should be upscaling the SD version to match the resolution of the HD version in order to make a more accurate measure of the differences? I realize not all scalers may be equivalent, but regardless I think it would be a more logical way to determine how much better a BR is over its SD counterpart. Unless I am missing something that someone else would like clarify.Originally Posted by Edwin-S
I'm having trouble seeing much of a difference in the DVD Beaver screenshots of the Warner BD and DVD. I'm not sure that I'm really going to need to upgrade to the BD of this film.
I see...my concerns are actually minimal compared to the downsampling on the HD image.Originally Posted by cafink
Also, the comparative Blu-ray screen captures on DVD beaver have been downsampled to about a quarter of the full 1920x1080 image size, so it's not really a fair comparison in that respect, either.
Thanks for the link to your site. Yes, those screen captures with mouse over's provide a much better reference to the differences. It clearly shows how much difference the resolution upgrade of blu-ray can make over SD in resolving grain properly in video.Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
Its a worthwhile upgrade, the dvd had a lot of shots which were zoomed in and compression artifacts are everywhere, the blu ray is more detailed on a number of scenes and similiar detail levels on some others, more importantly the film grain looks far more natural with none of the compression issues seen on the dvd.
To check out some differences between the dvd and blu ray you can click the link below, i painstakingly did some mouseover comparisons which took an entire day to do.
http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/2010/09/22/hd-comparisons-king-kong-1933/
The blu ray has also had additional cleanup work applied to it, personally i think if you like the movie or are a collector it's a must buy release.
Possible, there is certainly more information on a number of shots both at the sides of the frame and sometimes the frame is different at the top and bottom, one exception is screencap 14 with the bird which has different framing to the dvd although i'm sure there are many more examples. I'm really looking forward to watching this on my birthday next Tuesday on the bigscreen as i love classic cinema so this will be a real treat.Originally Posted by Doug Otte
Thanks for your work, Foxy. It also looks like the DVD was horizontally stretched.
Doug
Originally Posted by Trevor824
I hate to sound like an ignorant / Jeff Wells like viewer complaining about "grainstorms"
BUT
In watching the Blu-ray, it has to be one of the grainiest I have seen in some time. I didn't have the original to compare it to, but I never noticed something like this on TV airings.
I realize that some actually like grain, and you may be able to adjust your TV settings, but on factory settings (which lets face it is all most people keep it at) it does look extremely grainy.
Screencaps show grain in a static form, in motion it looks like film, i know you dislike film grain but it's where the detail is at and i mean the finer detail, its a real shame you would stick by a dvd which incidentally has the grain but the dvd fails to resolve it and instead is full of compression artifacts, i mean what do you consider worse, real film grain or bad compression artifacts!Originally Posted by Steve Christou
Well that is a shame and I've had a look at FoxyMulder's screenshots. It means no Blu-ray Kong for me. DVD only.
Well don't keep the joke to yourself please let us all know what you find so funny.Originally Posted by warnerbro
This is the funniest post ever on Home Theatre Forum. I'm sure Fay is looking down and laughing.
Hello,Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
Screencaps show grain in a static form, in motion it looks like film, i know you dislike film grain but it's where the detail is at and i mean the finer detail, its a real shame you would stick by a dvd which incidentally has the grain but the dvd fails to resolve it and instead is full of compression artifacts, i mean what do you consider worse, real film grain or bad compression artifacts!
To the person talking about factory settings on televisions, yes they will enhance the grain and make it look ugly thats why i recommend buying the Spears and Munsil disc and calibrating your monitor, a well calibrated monitor will make your films look filmlike and the grain will look much more natural, its worth the effort believe me it is, once again i just don't understand the complaints, people will accept very high levels of compression artifacts but get annoyed at film grain, it makes no sense to me.
I, too, am curious as to what Darrell (and Fay Wray) might find so amusing.Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
Well don't keep the joke to yourself please let us all know what you find so funny.
Trevor824 said:60#post_3731668
I, too, am curious as to what Darrell (and Fay Wray) might find so amusing.
A great idea Foxy. I'll be first in line.Trevor824 said:/forum/thread/300127/king-kong-1933-blu-ray/60#post_3731672
Anyway this debate over to have film grain or dnr it away is ever present with every film review on blu ray, my feeling is they should build DNR controls into the blu ray player rather than the monitor and let people dial it down if it annoys them and for those who like the filmed look we get to keep it, that way both camps are happy.
That is a thought. The question would be whether the better algorithm's used in current processing steps for doing DNR would be able to do it in real-time for display right now. I'll bet there are some fairly sophisticated software tools in use by the top companies that can do some amazing things when used correctly. I'm under the impression that DNR and related tools are not really a bad thing when used well, but when done badly they really bring attention to themselves and stand out in a negative away. So I wouldn't want some cheap alternative thrown in as a solution.Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
Anyway this debate over to have film grain or dnr it away is ever present with every film review on blu ray, my feeling is they should build DNR controls into the blu ray player rather than the monitor and let people dial it down if it annoys them and for those who like the filmed look we get to keep it, that way both camps are happy.