Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here. (1 Viewer)

[Dave Moritz]

Has there been any announcement about the Jack Ryan Collection and when we might see it on Blu-ray?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Actually its not nonsense at all, it's basic geometry. An anamorphic film is using the complete academy aperture frame. A super 35 shot for 2.35:1 is using just a little over half of that real estate. There for the frame of a super 35 films is being enlarge almost twice as much to fill the same screen size and as a result the film grain is also being enlarged almost twice as much. (think of an anamorphic DVD filling a 16x9 screen as apposed to blowing up a non anamorphic DVD to fill the same screen)

Yes there are other factors such as ISO rating and method of processing that can effect the visible grain structure, however all things being equal, grain will appear to be much finer in an scope photographed film than in a super 35 film projected on the same size screen. Of course a super 35 film can appear to be sharper than an anamorphic film because spherical lenses are typically sharper than anamorphic, and also tend to be faster, meaning you could potentially shoot with slower film stock. But if you can afford the best anamorphic lenses from Panavision then those factors are really not much of an issue.

By the way I am a professional cameraman and I've been shooting film for 25 years.

Doug

 

[Goko]

The explanation is not readily apparent to me and I would hazard a guess that it's not apparent to 99% of CE consumers outside this forum.
I must confess I don't know much about "DNR" nor do I want to know and I see nothing wrong with remaining blissfully ignorant of the subject. Like, perhaps, most viewers that simply trust their eyesight and experience, the main focus for me is enjoying the movie experience in my home theater and yes - it's enjoyment of the story that counts the most, as it should.
I do, to some extent, trust professional film reviewers, and if they describe the PQ as first rate than, certainly, I'm not going to worry about DNR since its affects are, at most - subtle.

 

[Douglas Monce]

The problem is that most average viewers are used to watching a movie at home in standard definition which tends to hide the film grain. When they see a film in HD suddenly there is all this grain they aren't used to seeing, even though it is supposed to be there.

It's really a matter of educating people about what they are supposed to and not supposed to be seeing in a movie that was shot on film. Ignorance is fine until you understand what you are missing out on. Grain in a natural part of movies shot on film and you see it every time you go to the movie theater. You should also expect to see it at home. When you start to use DNR just to remove film grain, you also start removing details in the actual image.

Doug

 

[RobertR]

You can choose to be ignorant about anything you want, but anyone who is reviewing films on Blu-Ray (or DVD for that matter) has no business being "blissfully ignorant" of things such as DNR, EE, and aspect ratio (you seem to think a "professional reviewer" can't be ignorant of anything, which is not true). "Blissful ignorance" is what causes companies to release films in pan and scan versions, colorize films, and apply excessive EE and DNR. "Enjoyment of the story" doesn't mean people shouldn't care about getting the most faithful presentation of the film, else we'd all still be watching VHS.

 

[Dave H]

RobertR and Douglas...couldn't have said it better.

 

[Michael Reuben]

That's a key qualifier, Doug. And most people who make the Super35/anamorphic comparison don't understand the importance of including it.

And, really, in your experience as a cameraman, how often are all things really equal?

I'm no doubt overly sensitive on this issue, having had to explain it numerous times to people who would never be able to respond with phrases such as "ISO rating". It's a classic example of a little learning being a dangerous thing.

Now back to the topic at hand . . .

M.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Well lets put it this way, if I were the DP on a particular film, and the Director said to me that he didn't like to see grain, or he wanted a paricularly clean look to the film, and he wasn't concerned about depth of field, there would be no question about it. I would shoot anamorphic.

Now this might mean that the gaffer's budget is going to have to go up because I'm going to need more lights in order to get the levels I need for proper exposure. Or it might mean that I would rent the fastest anamorphic lenses available, although I would rather shoot at a T stop where the lenses are sharpest, typically around t5.6.

Yes it would be possible to get a clean low grain look in super 35, I've seen many films that look like "cotton candy" bright clean low grain, (Enchanted comes to mind) but starting out with more negative real estate would clearly make getting this look easier.

Both formats have their advantages and disadvantages and the needs of the film would dictate which to use. Of course these days most distributors would probably prefer that if a film is going to be shot 2.35:1 that it be shot super 35 to make broadcast in 4x3 easier.

Doug

 

[Scott-S]

One thing to keep in mind with this discussion is that film grain uses more space when it comes time to run the image through compression for mastering. What I mean is the more film grain, the more the compression algorithms must work. What this means if you have a film with film grain, you will not be able to compress it well as the same film with less grain (after dnr). So either you will start to get compression artifacts, or you will need more space on the disc.

We all know that a static image compresses much more easily than a rapidly changing image. If there is a lot of visible film grain, the compression algorithm sees this as a rapidly changing image and the engine cant compress the image as easily.

I wonder if that is another reason for the use of some noise reduction during the mastering process? It helps save disc space.

Just a thought.

By the way, I work with an engineer that has spent his whole career working on video compression hardware. I am getting this info from our many discussions about the subject, not from first hand experience.

 

[Douglas Monce]

This is very true, but in the case of blu-ray, there is more than enough bandwidth and storage space to handle just about any situation with regard to film grain.

Now this requires more skill on the part of the compression artist, and that he or she be more diligent about their job, but I can't see any situation with 35mm film that could not be handled with a modern codec such as AVC or VC1 on blu-ray. I mean if The Sting can fit on an HD DVD, and it is a nicely naturally looking grainy film, then where is the problem?

Doug

 

[Michael Reuben]

That's an interesting choice of phrase: "wastes space".

So tell me, does it "waste space" to have a big battle scene with lots of extras, maybe multiplied many times with CGI? Because all that extra motion "wastes space" by making the image less compressible. Should we require the filmmaker to have fewer figures in the frame so that less space is wasted? Maybe we should redo the scene for video to remove, say, half the combatants so that less space is "wasted".

This may seem like a specious comparison, but it isn't. Grain is an inherent part of film. A director and a DP choose a look for a film, and that decision is just as important as choosing the framing. Most people here would be up in arms if the film's OAR were compromised so as not to "waste space" on the disc. Why shouldn't the same standard apply to preserving the grain structure that accompanies the lighting and texture of the film?

It's not "wasting space". It's using the available space for exactly the reason it's there.

M.

 

[Scott-S]

Sorry Michael. I edited my post. "Wasted space" is perhaps not the best terminology.

 

[Douglas Monce]

This is a great point. And now Directors and DPs have the option to shoot digitally and have no grain at all, so it's not like the old days where the film stock choices were limited to 2 or 3 types.

Ironically I'm working on a project now that is being shot digitally, but is emulating the look and feel of a film from the late 1940s. So I'm doing all kinds of tests to add realistic looking film grain to a b&w image, and even adding minor film damage such as dust specks and reel change markers.

Doug

 

[Michael Reuben]

I appreciate the change of phrase, Scott, but I stand by my point: Grain is a legitimate picture element, and it's the compressionist's job to keep it intact, just as it's the telecine colorist's job not to eliminate it.

M.

 

[Paul_Scott]

One of the reasons the import of the '76 version of King Kong (coincidentally under Paramount control in the US) is one of my favorite HDMs is bittersweet nostalgia.
The other reason is because it provides a clear illustration of how well HD can replicate the signature of film thru the reproduction of unmolested fine grain. At the same time, a comparison with the R1 dvd shows how much is lost with DVNR applied to this 'grainy' film. With the grain fully intact, the HD DVD sparkles with detail and immediacy - whereas the dvd has a veiled, smeared look in comparison preserving only the 'big picture'. I have little doubt the NR was necessitated by the compression demands, especially early on when the disc was first released. But HD DVD provides first hand proof grain adds not detracts, and can be beautifully preserved on these formats without having to be scrubbed down to appease technical limitations.
That disc is the primary reason I bought a spare HD DVD player. Even if the earth shifts on it's axis and Paramount decided to release that particular title on Blu-ray in R1, I would not expect the end result to look anywhere near as pure and film-like as the Studio-Canal version.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm revisiting this thread, because I've come across another Paramount release with excessive DNR: Trading Places, which is so far only on HD DVD.

Now don't get me wrong: It was great seeing this classic comedy in hi-def and getting all the great scenic detail of Philadelphia from 25 years ago. I happen to think that Trading Places is John Landis' best comedy (yes, even including Animal House and The Blues Brothers), because it has a perfect balance of a tightly structured script and some very funny comic actors playing fast and loose within that structure. And the pacing never flags.

But the first thing I thought when the HD DVD started to play was this: "What the hell is wrong with Dan Aykroyd's face?!" It was pasty and sickly and looked they'd grabbed the first person who walked in off the street to do the make-up.

Then it hit me -- it's a 1983 film, and there's isn't a flicker of grain. DNR strikes again.

It isn't too bad in long and medium shots, but whenever the camera gets close to anyone, most of the younger cast members have about the same quality of skin tones as Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy. The movie's good enough to get past this alteration, and I'm not sorry to own this disc, because it's probably the best this classic will look for a long time to come. But once again, the good folks at Paramount have succumbed to the temptation to "modernize" an 80s film and have succeeded only in making the characters look like animated mannequins.

Shame on you, Paramount.

M.

 

[Ron-P]

I looked at some comparison shots from Pans Labyrinth that showed screen caps with DNR and ones without, to be honest I could not see a difference between them. Guess it's a good thing, ignorance is bliss when it comes to this kind of stuff.

I learned my lesson when opening up a thread on EE many years ago, wish I never did.

 

[Michael Reuben]

As I have only recently begun to appreciate, the evils of DNR don't reveal themselves well in screencaps. You need moving pictures to see what happens when fine detail has been scrubbed away.

M.

 

[Ron-P]

Good then, I don't want to see what DNR looks like so I won't be distracted by it. I like watching a movie and enjoying it, not nit-picking the image quality and being distracted by issues like these.

 

[Michael Reuben]

That's your prerogative, Ron. But it's the prerogative of others who see these phenomena to raise the issue and try to do something about it, and there's really no reason for you to denigrate our efforts by dismissing them as "nit-picking".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear that you've seen the HD DVD of Trading Places. I assume that's why you've limited your comments to Pan's Labyrinth (which I have and which I don't consider to be a particuarly severe case of DNR, certainly nothing like the Paramount discs I've discussed in this thread). If in fact you haven't seen the disc, then you're really in no position to comment, and there's no point to your last two posts other than thread-farting.

M.