film grain (1 Viewer)

[FoxyMulder]

Okay a little test, might be a bit unfair since i'm using the trailer HD footage for this against the actual blu ray, basically you click the link and give it ten seconds or so to load in the browser, then just mouse on and mouse off to see both images, which one do you think is more detailed.

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/silence_graintest.html

 

[jimmyjet]

well, i can tell you that the flickering is no optical illusion.

compared to the rest of you guys, i have a small monitor, and do not want a bigger one, for the very simple reason of lack of clarity.

but it brings to point something that i was not aware of - it is not even any sort of surprise that what occurs for me is different from what occurs with a large monitor.

i never liked the big screens, cuz they were never as sharp. i am very content to sit up closer to a small monitor.

picture clarity, color and a SILENT BACKGROUND are all quite important.

with a small screen i no doubt can do stuff without sacrificing the kind of clarity that one might with a 55" or a 100" screen.

my needs are simply gonna be different from most of you guys.

like i said, i am gonna fool around with all the settings so that i can have a better idea as to just what all of them do.

i think i did do this to some extent when i got the tv, but had forgotten.

yesterday was a nice reminder of what some of the controls do.

so far, with this one film, noise reduction did nothing at all on my system.

if i see no difference, then i probably will not use it.

the only other video i watched was "think like a man". that might have been a little clearer than pawn ? but it may also be that i was more taken back by it, cuz it was the first one i saw.b

but videos have silent backgrounds, which really makes a difference for me.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi foxy,

the one image is what it might look like with too much sharpness.

my tv at highest level, did not do that much to the faces.

i dont think that person's face had that much pores, etc. showing.

at +20, i think the sharpness was fairly accurate. at 0, the image was a big softer than what i think reality was.

 

[Robert Crawford]

hi foxy,

the one image is what it might look like with too much sharpness.

my tv at highest level, did not do that much to the faces.

i dont think that person's face had that much pores, etc. showing.

at +20, i think the sharpness was fairly accurate. at 0, the image was a big softer than what i think reality was.

What exactly is your screen size and how old is your television?

 

[schan1269]

He has this one(trying to find reviews...there aren't any)...

http://www.tv-reviews-ratings.com/insignia-ns-32l550a11-review.html

 

[jimmyjet]

the rectangular measurements are 27 1/2 by 15 1/2.

i think i have had it for 3 years ? i bought it new at best buy. insignia is their top of the line house brand.

there lesser brand was considerably not as good. but the insignia seemed just as good to me as any of the other models.

 

[jimmyjet]

just a note about me for anyone who may be interested.

i am not trying to duplicate a home theater, at least in the sense that most of you would describe it.

i havent been to a movie theater since i was a kid. but i went to a lot of them, then.

for me, the movie theater was where one went to see the latest releases, as well as classics. back then, it was not just about current movies. and there were tons more theaters.

remember, there was no such thing as dvds or digital medium. your choices were two - watch 240 resolution on your home tv, or go to the movie theater.

what i am trying to produce here at home is a library of all the stuff that i like, in the best clarity that i can get (to a degree).

and i am positively thrilled at watching all this old stuff in a resolution similar to the original film. most of this stuff i have only seen on 240 tv.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi foxy,

adaptive and dynamic contrast have always been off. i left them that way.

 

[haineshisway]

I must confess I am at sea in terms of comprehension here

 

[schan1269]

I must confess I am at sea in terms of comprehension here

Don't worry, the OP is in the sea ordering lunch...

 

[jimmyjet]

hi foxy,

i just watched the guilt trip with barbra streisand.

i know it must be a video, cuz it is too clear to be film.

how can i tell by looking at the packaging whether it is shot in film or video ?

the backs of these packages are filled with a gazillion different pieces of information !!

i used the same exact settings for this one as i did for the video yesterday. and i really like it, just the way it is. sharp detail, great color, and absolutely easy on the eyes.

so this will be my video settings.

i still have some experimenting to do with the film blu-rays, and the various dvds.

btw, i put in the dvd afterwards. it is still pretty good, but there is a noticeable difference in the picture quality.

i would be happy watching the dvd, but the blu-ray is definitely better. i guess this is to be expected if the disk and tv can both display 1080 resolution.

if i had a big set like yours, i would probably notice the difference significantly more.

thanks for all your help. i appreciate it.

 

[Mark-P]

i just watched the guilt trip with barbra streisand.

i know it must be a video, cuz it is too clear to be film.

how can i tell by looking at the packaging whether it is shot in film or video ?

This one appears to have been shot on 35mm film:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1694020/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

 

[jimmyjet]

film ? really ? boy, it looked great. clean as a whistle - havent seen film look this good.

 

[jimmyjet]

i just noticed that it was shot in 2012.

this really tells me there is a big difference in film of today versus film of yesteryear !!

 

[schan1269]

Wait, you mean Streisand hasn't been 60+ years old her entire career?

 

[Mike Frezon]

No, I'm pretty sure she has.

 

[FoxyMulder]

hi foxy,

i just watched the guilt trip with barbra streisand.

i know it must be a video, cuz it is too clear to be film.

how can i tell by looking at the packaging whether it is shot in film or video ?

the backs of these packages are filled with a gazillion different pieces of information !!

It's all down to the film stock and camera lenses and how they shoot the movie, if they shoot on 35mm film and make the movie at night with a lot of dark scenes then expect some visible film grain, they got around that in the past by shooting day for night and putting filters on the camera lens.

You can't tell by looking at the back of the packaging but if you go to IMDB, make an account there, then scroll down the page of the movie you are interested in and click aspect ratio, it will tell you the camera's used and film stock and whether it was shot on 35mm, 70mm, digital, etc etc.

 

[Wayne_j]

As for grain, if it was there in the theater it should be there on the blu-ray.

I really do think that JimmyJet's main problem is his TV settings, Color is set way too high, Sharpness is probably way too high which provides fake clarity and over emphasizes the grain, and his contrast setting may be too high as well.

 

[haineshisway]

Well, about half the information on the imdb is questionable so there's that.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Only half?