Is it too much to ask... (1 Viewer)

[Jari K]

Just out of curiosity.. How do you divide the review-sites that "appreciate film" and which "doesn´t appreciate film"? Just wondering, since one site has usually several reviewers etc.

I bet most (sure, not all, some clearly just "take the review-copy and run") of these reviewers "appreciate film" and all that, but the big question is, that how "deep" those reviewers have to dig? They might just "miss" (or even ignore) something when it comes to serious "HT-crowd". And if they "miss" something, that doesn´t necessarily mean that the transfer looks "bad". Review is hardly never the "whole truth". Often it´s just one opinion. Buying (or NOT buying) some title based on e.g one review is probably not recommended. Several sources is the key.

After all, we´re not living in a perfect world (even Blu-ray is not "perfect") and not all people watch these films like the people who e.g. made that AVSforum-list (hell, I have several of those releases - and I´m happy with them).

But sure, DVNR is obviously a bad thing. I personally like natural film grain.

 

[Michael Reuben]

{shameless self-promotion on} There are still some reviewers who know the difference. {/shameless self-promotion off}

M.

 

[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.

 

[Jari K]

It´s true, that many people don´t fully understand film grain, especially now with 1080p. Some actually believe that "300" and "Cars" should look "equal" (=polished, "perfect", no grain, vivid, sharp, etc). With Blu-ray, some people suddenly forget the "intended, artistic style" of the film, and focus solely on the technical issues.

There are clearly unrealistic expectations towards Blu-ray, we have seen this from time and time again.. Sadly.

Grain is part of the film dammit!

 

[Danny_N]

Maybe not but the public nowadays has much more ways to make its opinion known (and does so louder than ever) than it did in the thirties. There's a reason why Hollywood is ruled by accountants these days and art is almost a dirty word.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

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_

 

[TravisR]

'These days'? It's always been that way.

 

[Rachael B]

That makes sense. I've seen the same issues on multiple formats/channels too.

 

[Paul_Scott]

I didn't do a good job of expressing my thoughts in the original post because while DNR abuse worries me greatly,I see it as symptomatic of a bad trajectory for the format in general- and that's tied into this dumbing down, homogenizing aspect I see creeping in.
Rather than the studios getting into a mindset that has to turn catalog in a video-game clean, grain free, ignoramuses idea of what 'HD is supposed to look like' , I want to see them prodded into taking a more pro-active role in elevating the discourse, and educating the buyers.
When I bought Deliverence, I had no clue as to the original asethetic intent behind the visuals, nor any idea of what 'flashed' meant. Rather than coming by this info in a commentary or featurette which I may not see- wouldn't it have been sensible to put this information in liner notes in an insert...so that you when threads get started warning people away from a release, the ammo is readily there to point to and say "this is what it is supposed to look like". They may not like the look, but the whole level of discourse has the chance to be more quickly elevated and rather than scaring people away, the (artistically) curious might be motivated to check it out sooner.
Some of the studios are doing this in regards to printing the tech specs on the jacket in detail. That satisfies the tech fetishists out there. I'm suggesting detailed info to satisfy the film-fetishists...which looks to me to also be the way to insure more positive word of mouth on future catalog. I really think the foolish warnings from tier-thread habituees hasn't helped many catalog sales in this regard. And THAT bothers me almost as much as the DNR abuse.
In short- a premium positioned product needs -LINER NOTES that put its visual, aural, and technical attributes into context.
Is that too much to ask?

 

[Rachael B]

Paul, that's all very noble but maybe we should pool our monies and buy the Discovery HD channel and make it grainy as hell to change folk's expectations. We could also push for a Scrub function on TV remotes so peoples of earth could have it their way and the media cold remain genuine. Then, they could adjust the grain right out of even Rattle And Hum if they wanted.

 

[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".

 

[Douglas Monce]

Interesting that you chose Transformers as your example. Its one of the grainiest films I've seen in the last 10 years or so.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

oh yeah 120hz with "motion smoothing" is another problem. I'm afraid the studios will start applying this effect to the masters rather than just letting the TV do it. Man it just looks like CRAP!

Doug

 

[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.

 

[Rachael B]

....but won't having a Rinse Cycle sound out'a place after Smooth'n?

 

[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.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Cartoon, nuthin'; it looks like an 8-bit videogame, complete with stairsteppy graphics. Kill me now, please.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I'm not talking about 120hz alone which provides the ability to do true 24fps. I have no problem with that at all.

But there are 120hz TVs now that offer what they call motion smoothing. It actually creates new frames in between the existing frames, up to 60 fps. It makes a 24p movie look like 60i video tape. It also adds all kinds of motion artifacts around moving objects on the screen.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Yeah it doesn't look great. However the new DVD of King Kong looks fantastic.

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.

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.

Doug

 

[Jari K]

Yep.