Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow
To be fair, this has been the case since the beginning. That's the nature of the beast known as "the public", and the difference in tastes between the people who went to see "King Kong" in 1933 and the ones who went to see "Transformers" in 2007 isn't all that huge.
|
|
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong
Well, if the current Blu-ray demo kiosk I'm seeing at one local CC is the trend and will actually sell the masses on Blu-ray, then we are indeed all doomed. Gosh, I cannot believe how weird the various combo of 120Hz smoothing effect (used in LCDs) + likely hyper enhanced Blu-ray images + whatever else the demo display itself does w/ EE/DNR/contrast/color boost/etc can look w/ the "3D pop" until I saw it the other day while scoping out some big HD displays at CC.
Talk about "3D pop". *That* Blu-ray demo reminded me of my kids' pop-up books (but suped up some more w/ color/contrast/etc). It's *that* kind of 3D pop look that I saw. Yikes! _Man_ |
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
I think idea 2 is more feasible, Rachael. Perhaps rather than "Scrub" though, they could give it some nifty acronym like DGE (digital grain elimination) or DGR (digital grain reduction), or call it "Smooth".
|
|
Originally Posted by GregK
The 120hz refresh rate is still in a state of gowth. Once true 5/5 pulldown is implemented in these displays, 24fps material will look much better.
|
|
Originally Posted by GregK
About a week ago, a number of friends were discussing a recent article from WIRED, which I like to refer to as "Beware of Focus groups"
Hollywood Studios Are Removing Grain For Blu-Ray Movie Reissues | Gadget Lab from Wired.com I've had more than a few conversations with co-workers & friends about this trend, notably back when HP showed what *they* thought was an improvement to King Kong. To these eyes, HP's changes made it look more like a cartoon, and contributes to a loss of fine detail. Well... You be the judge. |
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Also to be fair, King Kong is a special case. Because the original elements were destroyed to recover their silver content, there is no way to restore the original look of the film with out doing SOME processing. The existing elements are, I believe, 4 or 5 generations away from the original, and don't look anything like the original release of the film.
|
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Of course there is a difference between the careful use of grain reduction to attempt to get the look of the original release, and just eliminating the grain all together.
|
|
Originally Posted by GregK
About a week ago, a number of friends were discussing a recent article from WIRED, which I like to refer to as "Beware of Focus groups"
Hollywood Studios Are Removing Grain For Blu-Ray Movie Reissues | Gadget Lab from Wired.com I've had more than a few conversations with co-workers & friends about this trend, notably back when HP showed what *they* thought was an improvement to King Kong. To these eyes, HP's changes made it look more like a cartoon, and contributes to a loss of fine detail. Well... You be the judge. |
|
Originally Posted by Goko
O.K. Just using a snapshop impression of both pictures, I much prefer the "processed" image. To me it just seems to have more SNAP. I hate the 'gritty' look of the unprocessed image.
|
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Also a frame of movie film is not intended to be seen as a still and will look MUCH grainier than if you were watching the film being projected at 24fps.
|
|
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Two appended final points:
1. This cannot be seen in screen grabs. 2. On smaller screens, for example anything under around 35", this is almost moot, as the image with or without heavily applied DNR will look very similar unless one knows what they are looking for. On my 30" Sony HD CRT, Patton looked fabulous. And this presents yet another problem. If someone is working on a project and using a smaller professional monitor as opposed to viewing on a large screen, they may not see the damage that is being done. |
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Well you may hate it, but that is the way the film is SUPPOSED to look.
However in the case of this screenshot of Kong the grain is exaggerated by being about 5 generations away from the original film elements. Also a frame of movie film is not intended to be seen as a still and will look MUCH grainier than if you were watching the film being projected at 24fps. Doug |
|
Originally Posted by Goko
I appreciate what your saying but the way a film is "supposed" to look is totally irrelevant to me. I will always reserve final judgement based on my own perception of what constitutes a "good" picture. For me a good picture is nothing more than a picture (scene) that approximates as close as possible everyday vision. I happen to love the PQ of HD channels like Discovery. I view art in the same way. I would much prefer a blown up photographic image of the Grand Canyon than a Monet hanging on my living room wall.
|
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
For my money, home theater should try and replicate as closely as possible, the original intent of the filmmakers, with in the limitations of the equipment they had available to them when the films were made.
|
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
A single still may not be indicative of anything, but the more I look at the processed side of that image the worse it looks. Noticeable anti-aliasing along edges, areas of detail in the foreground buildings totally wiped out, and areas of background that take on the look of "blocking" does not make for a good looking picture. Look at the horizon in the background. The processed image makes that whole area look artificial.
|
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
But the vision of the Director and the DP may NOT be to replicate normal everyday vision. In fact a film like Saving Private Ryan, for instance is often trying to replicate the look of old news reel footage. Intentionally miss timing the shutter so you get streaking light in the image. And the film was processed to cause the grain to be more prominent. The intent in a film like that is clearly not to create pretty pictures, but rather to create a mood with the tools available.
|
| Should we go back now after 10 years and remove the grain from Ryan because it doesn't look like the Discovery channel? Should we colorize King Kong because most people would rather watch a color movie? |
| I don't particularly like the look of 300, but it is what the filmmakers wanted it to look like, and who am I to tell them they are wrong. |
| For my money, home theater should try and replicate as closely as possible, the original intent of the filmmakers, with in the limitations of the equipment they had available to them when the films were made. Doug |
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
For my money, home theater should try and replicate as closely as possible, the original intent of the filmmakers, with in the limitations of the equipment they had available to them when the films were made.
I also think that in the case of King Kong, modern tools should be use to try and get the available elements to look as closely as possible to the original release. In this case a little bit of grain reduction is a good thing, as long as it is not eliminating picture information as well. Doug |
) color palettes of most modern sets can enjoy their image with the saturation boosted. Or they can apply motion smoothing or in set or in processor DNR-- whatever it may be. In the mean time, we can try to educate each other without getting in the way of each other enjoying where they are at the moment.|
Originally Posted by Goko
I simply feel that any effort by the Director/DP NOT to replicate normal everyday vision is a distraction. Certainly, Saving Private Ryan would not have suffered any loss of realism had they decided to photograph the film (and blood) in realistic life-like color a la Enemy at the Gates. Films like Ryan don't need
fancy camara tricks to create 'mood.' Nothing wrong with the Discovery channel 'look.' I see it all the time when my eyes are open. I have no love of black and white movies and ALL could benefit from a quality colorization in my opinion. Hello - now we're talking turkey. I don't care for ANY camara tricks the Director/DP uses to try and enhance the story. The story should be able to stand on its own. 300 I think was just a fancy cartoon - my grand-kids loved it. Sounds good, but my home theater is used 95% of the time for watching recorded HD movies and TV/sports shows off Dish Net. Not much room there for such high minded ideals. |
|
Originally Posted by Goko
I simply feel that any effort by the Director/DP NOT to replicate normal everyday vision is a distraction. Certainly, Saving Private Ryan would not have suffered any loss of realism had they decided to photograph the film (and blood) in realistic life-like color a la Enemy at the Gates. Films like Ryan don't need
fancy camara tricks to create 'mood.' Nothing wrong with the Discovery channel 'look.' I see it all the time when my eyes are open. I have no love of black and white movies and ALL could benefit from a quality colorization in my opinion. Hello - now we're talking turkey. I don't care for ANY camara tricks the Director/DP uses to try and enhance the story. The story should be able to stand on its own. 300 I think was just a fancy cartoon - my grand-kids loved it. Sounds good, but my home theater is used 95% of the time for watching recorded HD movies and TV/sports shows off Dish Net. Not much room there for such high minded ideals. |
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
I doubt that there is a single film that completely recreates the world just as we see it in our every day lives. If films were made like that, we would soon stop watching them out of sheer boredom.
|
| Also, that comment about how all B&W films could benefit from quality colourization is amazing. |
|
Originally Posted by Goko
I simply feel that any effort by the Director/DP NOT to replicate normal everyday vision is a distraction.
|
Secondly, whatever reality there is, it's all just based on the particular (artistic or lack thereof) vision of the particular photographer, and there are as many different versions of such "realities" as there are opinions on the internet.
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
A single still may not be indicative of anything, but the more I look at the processed side of that image the worse it looks. Noticeable anti-aliasing along edges, areas of detail in the foreground buildings totally wiped out, and areas of background that take on the look of "blocking" does not make for a good looking picture. Look at the horizon in the background. The processed image makes that whole area look artificial.
|
