post #31 of 68
4/7/08 at 10:36pm
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
It's still not clear to me what paidgeek meant when he said it was "extremely grainy". Does that mean "there was more grain than there should be in a good original theatrical print", or does it mean "there was more grain than the marketing boys like to see with our shiny new format"? If it's the latter, I'd be pissed.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jari K
These "is it grainy in a *bad way* or in a *good way*"-debates are another "neverending story" in the forums, especially with HD (which reveal the grain more clearly many times). Grain is part of the film stock, one way or another. If people "hate it", it´s best for them to stick with the films like "Cars" and such..
|
|
Originally Posted by Geoff_D
What's worrying is that the studios are actively reducing the grain on older movies precisely so that they don't piss off the "Cars" crowd.
|
|
Originally Posted by Geoff_D
.... It leaves behind a smeary and unnatural looking image that distracts me all too often. The same goes for Anchor Bay's Dawn Of The Dead, as well as several of Paramount's catalogue titles.
|
|
Originally Posted by Geoff_D
....It's weird how contemporary stuff gets a pass (look at Paramount's Mi3 or Transformers, the Bournes from Univeral and 300 from Warners, all authentically grainy in HD) but older movies get an eraser taken to them.
|
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
Sounds like you've confirmed my fears, Geoff. Here we have a new video medium that has the ability to bring us closer to the original film, and what do these cretins do? They run the hell AWAY from the original look to make the "I want my movies to look like my video games and Discovery HD" crowd happy.
|
|
Originally Posted by Geoff_D
Just to reiterate: I'm not condoning the DNR process, but if they're gonna do it they may as well do it as best they can.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jeff Robertson
I believe they have with the Life of Brian BD. I do not see any artifacts as a result of DNR. Perhaps I shouldn't look for them.
|
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
Do you see EE?
|
|
Originally Posted by MattH.
I've only watched it once since I got it, but I was so impressed at what an improvement it was over the DVD I had that maybe I didn't look closely enough for problems.
The film never really looked great to my eyes, even in the theater. I'm well satisfied with the Blu-ray version. |
|
Originally Posted by Jeff Robertson
That is precisely the experience I had.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jeff Robertson
I believe they have with the Life of Brian BD. I do not see any artifacts as a result of DNR. Perhaps I shouldn't look for them.
|
|
Originally Posted by Geoff_D
I buy these things to watch my favourite movies in the best quality possible, which is why we're all here, right? That being the case, I make no apologies for calling a transfer on its faults, which in Brian's case doesn't require an AVS level of nit-picking but rather my own two eyes.
Static grain patterns in moving shots is wholly unnatural and for me is easily spotted. I watched Bonnie and Clyde earlier and thought to myself 'THAT's how it should be done'. The source is pristine and the HD encode retains the grain structure beautifully. |
| I watched Bonnie and Clyde earlier and thought to myself 'THAT's how it should be done'. |
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
The fact that Bonnie and Clyde was done right makes me even more annoyed. It seems that Warner would rather do it right, whereas Sony would rather make it shiny for their buyers who are into video games.
|
| since you're condeming all Sony BD's |
| Exactly where did I condemn "all Sony BDs"? |
It seems that Warner would rather do it right, whereas Sony would rather make it shiny for their buyers who are into video games. |
| The question remains: Why do it right on other titles, and wrong on this one? And why are critical comments intended to get a studio to do things right labeled "nonproductive" by you? |
| It's pretty much a blanket statement don't you think? |