Search results

Then enjoy as long as you can. Direct digital 1:1 stills don't lie.

Here you can find very good examples with pictures of DNR versus no DNR: HD Disk (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) EE and DNR list - AVS Forum Go to "Pan's Labyrinth" entry. Mouse Over version: http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/...h/6d3c815e.png

Of course one can also add noise to clean images. I'm currently watching "Battestar Galactica" in HD and every space shot has simply noisy blacks. Looks weird. Can't say I like that esthetic choice much. The others shots from HD camera have noise added too. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

Replace grain with noise and it still can happen. Digital cameras can be noisy too. And their output can be noise removed like film's. With the same kind of artifacts added doing so.

I don't think they are good enough (especially the limited color gamut) but it can't be changed with the current specs, (ab)use of EE and DNR can, on the other hand.

Still frames are different from moving pictures. Removing noise from still frames is strictly a local affair. You don't do temporal filtering because there is no temporal dimension. Many kind of artifacts you will not have on still frames because of that. You can still create a waxy or...

I suspect the film look and digital camera look is converging due to finer grain stock and the DI process (dust busting). More and more films look like they were shot with clean data cameras. They have little to no grain but are not full of DNR problems. They are superclean like video but have...

Several layers here. First different people have vastly different ideas of what is good and bad and different sensibilities in these matters. Second it's a business like any other. Meaning there are pressures of all kinds that can affect profit and survival. Jobs need to be finished in time...

(Do you have any evidence that there was DNR used on the Pirate films?) Of course that always makes one wonder if the same director objects to the look of the answer print too concerning grain (non DI case) and why something is ok on print(s) but not on HD. Double standards? No doubt some of...

Be more specific, please. The strange effects are due to what? - Grading? - Compression? - Scanner/telecine anomalies? - ?

I'm entirely unconvinced by any arguments that propose EE and DNR as helpful tools unless one is willing to admit that optimal solutions are not intended in the first place for financial or other reasons or we are talking about special situations with special needs (such as film restoration or...

I disagree. EE and DNR are at best crutches for issues better solved elsewhere, if they are considered issues at all. EE and DNR as used today on HD are most of the time just distortions of the original image to either - cater to real or imaginary tastes of the public (I hate grain; I want of...

Latest DNR victim: US BD/HD-DVD Pan's Labyrinth. Pans Labyrinth Pics & Impressions - AVS Forum The European version does not have it. As always you can vote with your wallet.

For the time being prints are not made with film recorders because it's way too slow and expensive. The cheapest route is one negative from DI. One IP from the negative. As many negatives from the IP as you need and from these the (high speed) prints. More expensive: Several negatives from the...

Technically there is no reason why HD can't cope with the grain. Parts of the audience apparently can't. :-) High bit rate AVC can deal nicely with grainy pictures.

The D-VHS has issues to. WB jaggies syndrome here. No good version around for now. Sad.

Depends on the film. The new films with DI use the camera negative so if the HD is from the DI the HD is from the original negative. For catalogue titles it's more usual to use the IP to save time/money and not risk damage to the best master element. If the film needs restoration from film...

Latest DNR victim I have seen: Eyes Wide Shot. Very bad call, WB. You did so well with "The Shining". And now this. :angry: I'll stick to my HD D-VHS recording off the air.

A negative is never a final master because it's a negative (inverted). The camera negative is the source with the most information but it's not a finished master because every negative must be color and contrast corrected into a positive so you can actually watch it with a non inverted picture...

I am. Money talks still the loudest. You can do more, of course (such as writing letters, posting on websites...). Of course it's better to give studios more precise feedback then just "do not like and do not buy". They might in the end figure you want even more EE and DNR since it was still...

No. I'd rather stick to other films with decent HD masters. If I must see this one I can rent. Buying crap means promoting crap.