|
Originally Posted by Mark Zimmer
This is probably why we didn't get an HD version of BARRY LYNDON---which uses the same technique except to the extreme of candlelight. I'm guessing the technology just isn't there yet to render this properly on home video without wiping out everything with DNR.
|
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
just a FYI,
after learning their lessons with their horrid first-batch of BD titles, Sony has now become the *reference* studio with HD transfers/masters. Paidgeek has also said that Sony has a policy that they do NOT apply filtering to remove grain or HF detail to ease compression: they are committed to being transparent to the source as intended by the director. They actually took a huge hit of criticism for their BD of Dracula because of this... and even when the director himself said that the BD looked exactly like the film print which he wanted at AVS, no-nothing posters continued to criticize the Blu-ray Disc as having video problems because of the grain and soft-focus. At least one studio is committed to doing it right. I think WB needs to be "brought on board" to the concept of "faithful to the source". |
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
just a FYI,
They actually took a huge hit of criticism for their BD of Dracula because of this... and even when the director himself said that the BD looked exactly like the film print which he wanted at AVS, no-nothing posters continued to criticize the Blu-ray Disc as having video problems because of the grain and soft-focus. |
| I must have missed this-Francis Ford Coppola commented on the BD release of Dracula? |
|
Originally Posted by Mark Zimmer
This is probably why we didn't get an HD version of BARRY LYNDON---which uses the same technique except to the extreme of candlelight. I'm guessing the technology just isn't there yet to render this properly on home video without wiping out everything with DNR.
|
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Yes David and of course today with most films using digital color timing, the DI becomes the source of all future copies of the film, be they on film or in some digital form. The interpositive and internegative will become a thing of the past as all prints are made from the DI via a film recorder.
Doug |
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
For the time being prints are not made with film recorders because it's way too slow and expensive. The cheapest route is one negative from DI. One IP from the negative. As many negatives from the IP as you need and from these the (high speed) prints.
More expensive: Several negatives from the DI and from these all the prints. That looks better of course and is the current digital gold standard. All prints from DI would cost millions and millons and take months to achieve (for a typical wide Hollywood release with thousands of prints). |
| It's one thing for consumers to have to swallow a pill when directors *change* things... like adding in a digital Jaba to their favorite film. But when a medium is being 100% faithful to the original source? |
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
I can't remember if he particpated directly, or if Paidgeek relayed his comments from his participation in the review of final product for Blu-ray authoring... but his comments about how the BD was being faithful were made clear, and many AVS members *still* complained about the lack of eye-candy factor.
|
| Actually paidgeek said "a representative from Zoetrope relayed Coppola's wishes to the transfer people at Sony" (paraphrased) I think Coppola has been pretty busy lately. |
|
Originally Posted by Dave Mack
To actually contribute to this topic though, (as I do tend to ramble!)
I would rather see a grainy image anyday then a smoothed over and then artificially sharpened transfer. Ironic that while so many people want to remove all hints of grain, we have filmmakers shooting digitally, (300) or CGI films like Moster House where they ADD artificial grain! |
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
Technically there is no reason why HD can't cope with the grain. Parts of the audience apparently can't. :-)
High bit rate AVC can deal nicely with grainy pictures. |
|
Originally Posted by Dave Mack
...Ironic that while so many people want to remove all hints of grain, we have filmmakers shooting digitally, (300) or CGI films like Moster House where they ADD artificial grain!
|
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
| a brief glance at the HD Trailers makes me wonder why people are so anti-grain. |
| VC1 seemed to do a good job with 300, too. |
When you have to shoot...shoot. Don't talk!
Steve S.
I prefer not to push the subwoofers until they\'re properly run in.
|
Originally Posted by Mark Zimmer
Zodiac is a new offender. Heavy DNR, heavy, heavy, heavy EE. Very disappointing.
|
|
Originally Posted by Dave H
Without mentioning names, there was an ISF calibrator on another forum claiming film grain can not be seen with 1920X1080 resolutions; he stated the grain in most cases it too small to be seen (excluding some titles like "300"). He claims people thinking they see film grain are seeing video noise. I think he's completely wrong. To my eyes, film grain has a finer, distinct, pattern look to it where as video noise (mosquite noise, artifacting, etc.) looks otherwise.
Anyone else's thoughts on this issue? |
Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".
