What Blu-ray discs do you consider as "Reference Video Quality" (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst




I read that too, but it doesn't seem likely. Why go through all the effort and money to do an 8K scan to scrub out all the detail in the picture?

The most common explanation, and the one that makes the most sense, is that there's an all-too common mindset that says "film grain is BAD. Blu Ray video is supposed to look exactly like that--eye-popping, '3D', High Definition VIDEO, ala Discovery Channel HD, etc.". The people with this mindset don't give a rat's ass about preserving the original film look. It's this mindset that studios frequently cater to. They use DNR to scrub away the "offensive, despised" grain (Check out various online reviews that mention the presence of film grain as a "defect" in a transfer, causing the reviewer to lower his evaluation). They then use EE to sharpen the picture in an attempt to restore the detail they just scrubbed away. The result is a godawful mess, but their "logic" says it makes sense to them. Now you know why it's NOT unlikely. That said, Baraka is not one of the really bad offenders in this regard.

 

[rich_d]

To me "reference quality" is what you would refer or show others as meeting the highest standard for Blu-Ray media.

 

[Xylon]

Tremors HD DVD

 

[Ray_R]

Originally Posted by Xylon /forum/thread/291595/what-blu-ray-discs-do-you-consider-as-reference-video-quality#post_3599555

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott

Mind you, he wasn't the only one saying this. Among all the other reviewers (expert and not), Roger Ebert--who despite any other shortcomings, is a consummate enthusiast of proper presentation of film--said the Blu-ray was perfection. That still doesn't explain this "Bill Hunt killed my family" level of animus you have here and which should be left out of future posts.

 

[Ron Reda]

For me, currently, it's gotta be "A Bug's Life"...the thing is flat out gorgeous on Blu-ray.

 

[Ray_R]

Originally Posted by Ron Reda

For me, currently, it's gotta be "A Bug's Life"...the thing is flat out gorgeous on Blu-ray.

I don't consider a film which is all CGI to be "reference" quality. Digital to digital isn't reference to me. Just the ALL CGI aspect.
I'm still not changing my signature.
If I were in charge, Jason and the Argonauts would most certainly be reference quality. Same goes for Clash of the Titans, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad and numerous other Harryhausen titles.

 

[Ron Reda]

Originally Posted by Ray_R I'm not asking you to change anything and I respect your opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine. The thread is titled "Reference Video Quality" - to me that means the highest quality video on Blu-ray and again, to me, that is "A Bug's Life."

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by RobertR




The most common explanation, and the one that makes the most sense, is that there's an all-too common mindset that says "film grain is BAD. Blu Ray video is supposed to look exactly like that--eye-popping, '3D', High Definition VIDEO, ala Discovery Channel HD, etc.". The people with this mindset don't give a rat's ass about preserving the original film look. It's this mindset that studios frequently cater to. They use DNR to scrub away the "offensive, despised" grain (Check out various online reviews that mention the presence of film grain as a "defect" in a transfer, causing the reviewer to lower his evaluation). They then use EE to sharpen the picture in an attempt to restore the detail they just scrubbed away. The result is a godawful mess, but their "logic" says it makes sense to them. Now you know why it's NOT unlikely. That said, Baraka is not one of the really bad offenders in this regard.

Oh, I'm very aware of this phenomenon and I absolutely hate it. I think a movie on Blu-ray should look like the film is supposed to look. If that means there's grain or soft focus scenes or whatever in it, so be it. So in my regard both Bullitt and A Bug's Life are 'reference BD's', although they look completely different from each other.
But, in the case of Baraka, the filmmakers were involved in the Blu-ray transfer. That's why I don't understand why they would add edge enhancement to it, especially since 70mm already has very fine grain. There doesn't seem to be any DNR though, the grain is still visible.
I also heard that while scanning the film the computer doing it automatically adds EE to it. Don't know if it's true or not.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst




Oh, I'm very aware of this phenomenon and I absolutely hate it. I think a movie on Blu-ray should look like the film is supposed to look. If that means there's grain or soft focus scenes or whatever in it, so be it. So in my regard both Bullitt and A Bug's Life are 'reference BD's', although they look completely different from each other.
But, in the case of Baraka, the filmmakers were involved in the Blu-ray transfer. That's why I don't understand why they would add edge enhancement to it, especially since 70mm already has very fine grain. There doesn't seem to be any DNR though, the grain is still visible.
I also heard that while scanning the film the computer doing it automatically adds EE to it. Don't know if it's true or not.

Apparently, it is true that EE is sometimes added automatically when transferring a film. Why? There seems to be this view that it has to look "better" (ie sharper) on a small screen, which EE can create the illusion of. Why would a filmmaker approve of it? Well, that just shows you can't even trust them to preserve the original look. Check out what William Friedkin did to The French Connection BR. That's just....amazing.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by RobertR

Check out what William Friedkin did to The French Connection BR. That's just....amazing.

Do you mean amazing in a good way or amazing in a bemused way? I didn't much care for what he did to the look.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




Do you mean amazing in a good way or amazing in a bemused way? I didn't much care for what he did to the look.

Bemused, definitely. I shake my head in amazement that he would change it like that. It shows that the director is NOT always right about the look of a film.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

All discs that accurately render the master used are reference concerning disk mastering. All masters that accurately render the underlying film within the technical parameters of the master format are reference masters. So an overall reference Blu Ray would accurately render a reference master. The closest thing we have are probably CGI animations made directly from files and compressed with high enough bit rates so compression artifacts are a non issue at real time watching. High bit rate Blu Rays coming from DI data are also good candidates, or carefully done new transfers of older films from the best sources presented again at high bit rates.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

RE: the automatic use of EE in the film transfer process, while I don't know the actual transfer process enough to be sure, but it could possibly be a case where some form of EE (and/or DNR) is a necessary "evil" considering whatever technological compromises may exist in the actual transfer process. Afterall, I'm pretty sure the mapping of film to (compressed) digital video is not some sort of perfect 1-to-1 process.

In the world of *still* photography, some form of EE is often applied even w/in film itself -- Ansel Adams for instance is well known for doing such cooking of his photos though not necessarily the same exact ways discussed here -- not just as a matter of film-to-digital transfer. And it's certainly common to apply some amount of EE to digital still processing though it usually varies according to the target output, eg. you don't apply the exact same processing for a 4x6 still as you would for a poster-size enlargement, you would also vary it depending on type of output.

And while some may argue what Ansel Adams (and other photogs) did was needed to create the final look he wanted and is not the same as this, I would beg to differ. The "final look" is what we as the audience gets to see w/ our own eyes whether it's a theatrical film projection or a BD image presented on our own HT display of choice. When the BD master is produced, all the factors involved in the "final look" that we as BD consumers see should be considered, IMHO.

No, I'm of course not asking for the BD master to simply cater to the lowest common denominator (and thus apply excessive amounts of EE and DNR and whatever other processing), but let's also not have some sort of knee-jerk reaction that all forms of EE and DNR are unnecessary evils.

EE and DNR, when used properly for the best possible results, should be no different than color correction for instance -- and I'm pretty sure color correction is done somewhat automatically to some extent too. Most people also don't realize their film processing at the typical photo lab regularly require color and exposure corrections too -- and it's usually done automagically by the 24-hour lab machines.

Since the processing of a 2-hour movie involves lots and lots of frames, it makes a lot of sense for some of these processing techniques to be applied at least somewhat automatically. Probably what actually happens is the process goes thru multiple passes where certain automatic processes get tweaked (either toned down or increased or adjusted in whatever other ways possible) depending on the results and whether the mastering folks (and filmmakers) find whatever compromises (if needed) to be acceptable or not.

There probably isn't any such thing as "true perfection" (yet?) when it comes to the film transfer process. Of course, again, I'm not suggesting Gladiator is what we should be shooting for -- just that we shouldn't overcriticize/demonize all uses of whatever processing techniques.

_Man_

 

[RobertR]

There probably isn't any such thing as "true perfection" (yet?) when it comes to the film transfer process. Of course, again, I'm not suggesting Gladiator is what we should be shooting for -- just that we shouldn't overcriticize/demonize all uses of whatever processing techniques.

_Man_

I saw a link to a video discussing Warner's film restoration process, in which they talk about the fact that they never automate dirt/scratch removal--they always have a person doing it. It sounds like no one bothered to take that approach with Gladiator. Also, what everyone is upset about is the egregious and COMPLETELY unnecessary overuse of DNR and EE. It doesn't have to be that way, shouldn't be that way, and ISN'T that way for a number of very fine releases.

As for the concept of perfection, I often see it stated or implied (not necessarily from you, Man) that people complaining about discs like Gladiator are overly demanding nitpickers, demanding superhuman standards of perfection from the poor beleaguered mortals at the studios. It's utter nonsense. We're asking that these people give us their best effort, which is NOT the same thing as demanding "perfection". Here's an example of why the "perfection" claim is so much hogwash: I just read a post describing a viewing of the new Braveheart BR: "It seemed like FILM and never video". As far as I'm concerned, you can't ASK for higher praise than that. The word "perfect" doesn't appear ONCE in his post. As a matter of fact, I've seen a few posts stating that a few dirt specks can be seen here and there on the Braveheart disc. And you know what? I don't GIVE a rat's ass, and neither do other people who are glad Braveheart looks the way it does--like FILM. So much for that "perfectionist" claim.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by RobertR

As for the concept of perfection, I often see it stated or implied that people complaining about discs like Gladiator are overly demanding nitpickers, demanding superhuman standards of perfection from the poor beleaguered mortals at the studios. It's utter nonsense. We're asking that these people give us their best effort, which is NOT the same thing as demanding "perfection". Here's an example of why the "perfection" claim is so much hogwash: I just read a post describing a viewing of the new Braveheart BR: "It seemed like FILM and never video". As far as I'm concerned, you can't ASK for higher praise than that. The word "perfect" doesn't appear ONCE in his post. As a matter of fact, I've seen a few posts stating that a few dirt specks can be seen here and there on the Braveheart disc. And you know what? I don't GIVE a rat's ass, and neither do other people who are glad Braveheart looks the way it does--like FILM. So much for that "perfectionist" claim.

At the risk of boring some, I'll repeat something ad nauseam.

The problem with the overuse of DNR (in all of its various digital incarnations) is that it need not be used at all when combined with the capacity of a Blu-ray disc. When used it should be generally to balance out the look of a shot or two in a simple transfer that may include a couple of occasional old dupes and no quality back-up.

For newer films, and anything created in the past 25 years fits neatly into that category, there is generally no need. Not to give car salesmen a bad name, but the use of DNR today reminds me of buying a car. After the deal is struck, one is led into a sanctum sanctorum, where the unsuspecting consumer is turned over to the closer. It is his (or her) job to sell you "stop-a-flat," seat protector, rust-proofing and paint sealant, to make that new car the "chick magnet" of one's dreams.

And this is precisely what, in my mind's eye, I can see going on when some unsuspecting mid-level studio actuary cuts a deal with a post house to turn their responsibility into the Blu-ray "chick magnet" of their superior's dreams. How can one possibly turn down the offer, for merely another ten thousand, to turn that old film into something totally new and glorious.

It's all good. And it may move that parking spot just a little bit closer to the office. And the money doesn't really matter, as it's at least partially charged back to the production.
Sorry, but that doesn't work.

Scan the properly selected original elements, clean dirt and detritus where necessary and without losing actual image information, add a pinch of color and density, and then downrez to HD. This is a simple matter of doing less, spending less, and achieving a final higher quality result true to the original. When there's a finished product to go through QC, have it examined by someone who knows what the film is supposed to look like on a large screen.

RAH

 

[RobertR]

Thank you, Mr. Harris. I hope everyone realizes that what you ask for in your last paragraph is an utterly reasonable quality standard that all the studios should be held to and can quite easily achieve. Doing so makes more money for them, makes consumers happy, and preserves the original look of the filmmakers much better. It's an utterly win win situation for everyone.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Originally Posted by EricW
also add Benjamin Button to the list of references discs, as well as most movies shot with digital cameras. although Superman Returns was a bit soft.

It was overcompressed. Another WB low bit rate encode.

 

[EricW]

It was overcompressed. Another WB low bit rate encode.

please describe the what was wrong with the picture and not the bitrate...

 

[Ray_R]

Here's to hoping FIGHT CLUB, North by Northwest, Forrest Gump, STARGATE and the rest of the titles I'm buying this quarter will be reference quality!