No grain at all on 'THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS' dvd, how? (1 Viewer)

[Kwang Suh]

Oh yeah, I should mention that this movie has absolutely no EE.

 

[Jason Whyte]

I was under the impression that all Super 35 transfers for video were done from the opened spherical negative and then letterboxed to 2.40:1, which is why you don't see the film grain evident from the anamorphic blow-up release prints.
Jay

 

[cafink]

Why is grain considered such a terrible, horrible thing? What is wrong with a little grain in the image? I'm not the only one who likes a film to look like film, am I? Al, it sounds like you and I are on the same wavelength.

Grain is a part of film. I don't find it bothersome or distracting. It's just the way a film looks. It gives character to the medium. Removing it from the film is altering the character of the movie, and I think it damages the film in much the same way that pan-and-scan does.

Just my always-humble opinion.

 

[Brian_J]

Hey John! Bulk up a bit! You initially post how wonderful TF&TF looks but when someone SAYS that its really bad because you've lost fine detail you fall back to oh, thanks, that's bad, now I know? Trust your eyes and your initial instincts. If you like it, you like it.

That said, I also like to have some grain in some movies. Some movies also look really good with little to none.

Brian

 

[Michael Reuben]

I was under the impression that all Super 35 transfers for video were done from the opened spherical negative and then letterboxed to 2.40:1, which is why you don't see the film grain evident from the anamorphic blow-up release prints.

Not sure what you mean there, Jason. If the transfer is done correctly, the same portion of the original negative is be used for both the release prints and the widescreen video. The only reason there's any additional "blow-up" on the release prints is because they're usually projected onto a bigger screen.

M.

 

[DanR]

Al brings up a great point. After reading all of the reviews of this disc, I was expecting a phenomenal transfer. Rather, I think we got a "clean" transfer, but on which lacks some fine detail. I couldn't have said it better myself. Still a great DVD, but not the best video I've ever seen from DVD.

Regards,

Dan

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Brian J, 'TFATF' DOES look good, i'm not changing my mind about that, but taking into account everything i've been told in this thread about the ill effects DNR can have on an image, I stated that maybe this transfer, while looking good, may not be accurate to it's natural look. If DNR WAS applied to this film, we may not be seeing the fine details we otherwise might have.
I did not see this film in the theater, so I have no point of referrance to draw from regarding how much grain was presant in the film originally.
Let me go on record here and state that i've never cared for Super 35, I don't care for the grain it produces, and generally don't care for the format itself, that's just me. Now that being said, I can tolerate Super 35 films with no problem, i'm not going to not view a film because it was shot in Super 35, that would be nuts. But I prefer a film to be shot anamorphically.
Now before anyone gets their pants in a bunch about that last part, let me make it clear that I REALIZE that it's not always practical to shoot anaorphically, and that directors choose Super 35 for many different reasons, I UNDERSTAND THAT PERFECTLY, but I don't have to like it.
I started this thread to learn something, and I have, DNR shouldn't be used, you lose detail when you do so. I would prefer a Super 35 transfer WITHOUT DNR, and mantain the films natural look with the fine details remaining intact. It seems that DNR is no better than EE.
If it's one thing you should know about me Brian, is that I have the courage of my convictions, I take what i've been told into account, and then apply it accoridingly, i'm not going to say "Geez, your right, the transfer on TFATF really sucks!", that's not me. So if your suggesting that i'm somehow "wimping out" because other members who are more in the know about this particular subject told me so, you sir are mistaken.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The transfer doesn't look like it's been cleaned up.

I spotted a few specks (maybe 3 in the whole film), but the picture didn't lose detail.

Even on the highest power zoom on my Tosh, it looked sharp.

Probably just a great High Def to DVD transfer.

 

[Dave H]

I really don't mind some film grain so much - it's the compression artifacts on some DVDs that's far more annoying. The Matrix had this problem.

 

[Frank Doorhof]

For what it's worth,
I just saw the movie, and this is INTENSE.
Picture quality is very, very good (don't start about the sound which is mindbogling good).
I use a G70 with a 2.85mtr's width screen (130" diagonal ?)
And the transfer is a detailed as I have seen them, no loss of detail. Maybe after close inspection, had my moviewatching head on , but in NO way soft or less sharp then let's say the 5th Element.
Very good work, can't wait to see more of this transfers.
I do think however that for this movie your projector has to be really good calibrated, the contrast range and colors are rather extreme and almost over the edge (read almost, not over).
A A+ movie & transfer.
Greetings from Holland,
Frank

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

From what I recall of seeing the film in the theatre, it was shot in a very high-contrast fashion. High contrast tends to hide grain. It is quite possible that this is why it appears less grainy.

I have not seen the DVD.

 

[Scott H]

O.k., but this film didn't look like television to me, it looked damn good in fact

By television did you mean video?
There is exceptional filmmaking on television all the time. Film cinematography. Much of this originates via S35, much on S16. With S35 you can, comparing the same exact film stocks, shoot 1.78:1 for HD broadcast achieving finer grain than shooting regular 35.

 

[cafink]

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The finer the grain structure of the film, the finer the detail that can be resolved.

This is true, but it misses the point. Finer grain results in finer detail, but if a film has a very course grain structure to begin with, then nothing can be done to add detail to the image. "Removing" grain from an image is not the same as shooting without grain in the first place.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Seems like DVD transfers, start to be like food!
Everytime I start to enjoy it,someone will tell me it's bad for me.
Same goes to the DVD transfers,even if it's look good,it's not,or at least the method to make it isn't.
:frowning:

 

[cafink]

Lewis, when it comes to the video quality of a DVD, there is no better reviewer than your own two eyes. The hardcore HT enthusiasts (myself included) can ramble on and on about grain and aspect ratio and aperture and whatnot (not that there's no place for such discussion), but at the end of the day, if it looks good to you, then nothing else matters.

Enjoy your 'The Fast and the Furious' DVD!

 

[Scott H]

This is true, but it misses the point.

Hey, I did miss the point there...

I read that line out of context. Sorry TedD.

 

[DmitriP]

This movie does for street racing what 'Days of Thunder' did for Nascar. Lots of stuff exagerrated or just plain wrong. But that's off topic. So I'll be quiet.

Dmitri

(Who likes pretty pictures, but good stories too)

 

[TedD]

I finally watched this last night and I'll stand by my earlier statement:

No grain = no fine detail.

And there isn't any on this title, not a single resolved strand of hair, facial closeups without a single visable pore, nothing that would indicate a real level of detail.

Don't get me wrong, the image looks pleasing from a superficial viewpoint, but it's clear that the DVNR applied to remove the film grain also removed other things.

Reference quality transfer? Maybe for someone with a system that can't resolve fine details, but not compared to Moulin Rouge, or even Pearl Harbor.

Ted

 

[Rich Malloy]

While I agree with Ted's comments in general - and note that I haven't seen the disc nor am I interested in the title - I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with making the decision to give a title like this the ol' digital smooth-over. It may well be precisely the look the filmmakers are trying to achieve. Someone mentioned up-thread that it was shot very high-contrast, and so fine detail has already been sacrificed to some extent in the shoot. I imagine the filmmakers may have been going for a very cartoon-like look - bright, primary colors and little shadow detail... that sorta thing. I don't have a problem with this at all. It's not so different from the kind of processing one sees in SPR or Three Kings.
But it's a different issue altogether when a classic film has this process done to it specifically for DVD release. While I'm not complaining about any specific title, it's one of those worrisome trends that we've noted and should keep an eye on (kinda like edge enhancement). I think this whole thing has started because studios are trying to appeal to people who don't really know what these films are supposed to look like. I even remember some people complaining about the amazing transfer done from fully-restored elements for Criterion's REBECCA. They simply didn't understand that grain is an inherent part of the film, the loss of which isn't simply problematic in terms of fine detail - it's problematic in that it changes the whole look of the film.
There's a great interview with Criterion's CEO, Peter Becker, at Salon.com some time ago where this issue was directly addressed:
http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/20...ion/index.html

People can become fanatical about wanting crisp clarity to the point where I also see that there's a subset of people who are annoyed by seeing film grain, which is part of the essence of film. When we make DVDs, we try to preserve a sense of the grain even though we know that by the time it is fed through your television set it is nothing more than an impression of the texture of the film. That impression is important, and it's easy to wipe out -- just crank up your noise reducer and it will turn everything into television -- but this is not television, it is film. And that grain has its own elegant dance to do on your screen. --Peter Becker

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Interesting, Al...quite interesting!

Great info.