Lord of the Rings on Blu Ray — Page 3

Johnboy3434 said:

Do you have any studies or professional opinions to back up that assertion from the first paragraph? On a personal level, I find extremely fine-grained pictures to be much more involving, because it feels like there's nothing between me and what's happening on screen (like 3D, but reversed; like I could reach into the film). Higher-grain pictures I find more distracting, because I'm like "Whoa, there's this constantly fluctuating cloud of stuff over my picture!" Granted, that cloud of stuff is the picture, but it wasn't in front of the camera (like the actors), nor does it exist within the construct of the film's story (like effects done in post). In my opinion, something that doesn't meet at least one of those two requirements is something not worth keeping. That's why I don't like grain. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but can you at least understand where I'm coming from?

I somewhat understand where you're coming from. Yes, it's obvious to me that our eyes work in a way that involves much higher accuracy than 35mm film grain since, with the latter, we're seeing something that wouldn't be present if we were actually standing there. However, do you think that pixels and the softening of one pixel's value in combination with another, to produce a soft, solid image would be something you'd see in real life? That takes me out of the moment too! Our eyes don't see in a method that uses averaged pixels and the resulting soft and solid look is not something that was in front of the camera (in terms of what our eyes would see) or a part of the films story either, was it?

It's at that point that I don't understand where you're coming from. Grainy film images or softened, solid, pixel-based images are both capturing what is in front of the camera but in two different ways. Both give us textures that are different from what our eyes would directly see, but both capture what is, in reality, in front of them. There's nothing fake about grain. The texture of film grain captures reality and I would argue that it's less contrived and controlled than an electronic means that shoots out averaged values across many squares in a rectangular grid. Do I know that for sure? No, but it sure feels right to me.

Grain-based images feel much more natural, emotional, and organic. I only like the feel of digital to the degree it is very straightforward in a logical sense. Neither functions as our eyesight does, however. I would guess that our eyes pick up distinct, random values of light and color more like what 35mm grain does, but at the same time it's far more accurate and I would guess that matches the straightforward nature of the latest digital cameras.

The top paragraph in my last post was simply my own, crazy thinking and I would love to see some technical science explore the issue. For instance, highly chaotic grain and straightforward, averaged pixels are not even apposed to each other. For Blu-ray and DVD, people can use a digital scan to actually capture grain detail in a digital form (which is a weird thing to see). The two methods work differently and can affect each other. Ultimately this was the basis of the thinking behind my point. Any real-world image will have less detail than an image of infinite accuracy. If I use a grain-based method or a pixel-based method to achieve high or low detail it doesn't matter.

Ultimately it comes down to whatever an artist wants or what an artist used. I'm not going to support people who destroy what old films ACTUALLY ARE for the sake of reproducing them with a straightforward digital look. Their images were made on grainy film and should be represented as they are. If you want to make alternate versions, go ahead and do that, but leave grain where it is on any official media translations. Wherever artists want to go on newer films is up to them.

Max_Rebo said:

Johnboy3434 said:

Max_Rebo said:

Vaguely relevant to this discussion, basically stupid people are complaining about youtube going widescreen, this is the level of stupidity we have to contend with.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7749000/7749536.stm

 

I wouldn't consider those complaints "stupidity". They simply don't like the black bars. It's not really "stupidity" until they say the black bars are actually covering the picture. Then I want to smother them in their sleep.

Yeah I was probably being a bit harsh, most of them just seem to be asking to have the choice, which is a good thing, it just ammuses me that people complain about this when 16:9 is becoming the standard for tv/video, people just need to accept black bars in one form or another, they're not that bad I don't know how people can descride them as "distracting".

 

No, I'm gonna have to agree with you the first time.  They're dumb.  If they actually think that solid black bars are "distracting," one would think that the giant mass of white space that borders all YouTube videos, that are essentially bars in both directions, are distractions as well.  And also the plastic border around your television... wouldn't that be a distraction, too?  They only complain about this because they don't know any better or simply because they've heard other people complain about them.  Hell, I was the same way growing up when I first saw widescreen VHS movies for sale.  I asked about them, and my mom dismissed them because they had those black bars on them.  I never asked any further questions.  I simply believed they were bad because I was told they were bad.

I have a question for anyone knowledable of digital imaging versus film grain (and how cameras work in general):

It seems to me that when I focus my eyes on objects in the real world, other objects behind them will be out of focus. However, despite the fact that those objects are out of focus, they are not out of focus in a soft, blurry way. If I work hard to keep my mind centered on the out of focus portion of what I see, there are complex, small details making up that out of focus (due to distance) portion. I think that's the main reason why grain free images bother me (they just soften everything that's out of focus into a big mush when my eyes mix up that information in more complex ways). So, does that make sense in terms of everything technical we know about photography or am I just crazy? :)

Thanks, that all makes a lot of sense.

And you're right, when I close one of my eyes the background doesn't look as complex anymore (and seems softer than I was thinking earlier). Still, though, even with just one eye, the unfocused background seems (or feels) rather likes there's a complex fine-ness to the blur that seems to tell me that things aren't precisely where I'm seeing them on the smallest level. That is statistically true in a quantum mechanical sense, but it feels like my eyes are adding another sort of inaccuracy that sort of feels like Film Grain (albeit much, much higher resolution).

The reason I ask about this is because I was previously looking at how Lowry's grain removal affected some shots in the Sleeping Beauty Blu-ray when slightly-out-of-focus images were a concern. Since then I've just noticed there's a difference between the way depth of vision seems different in a digital image when compared to a film image:

http://www.index-dvd.com/coversbd/screenshots/apocalypto-bd-ss-2.jpg

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews39/the%20counterfeiters%20blu-ray/large/largecounterfeiters%20blu-ray3232.jpg

The latter doesn't feel as flat to my eyes, even though they're both 2D images. It's almost like out-of-focus portions make film grain seem even grainier and for some reason that feels natural and less flat to me. However, I'm an idiot with a lot of things and would like a more knowledgeable opinion correct me if I need it.

zombie84 said:

Well, those links don't seem to really work. But I'll say that animation--in the case of Sleeping Beauty--doesn't photograph in the same way that live-action does when discussing depth. In live-action, its a 3d space captured 2-dimensionally--but animation is a 2-d space captured 2-dimensionally. There was never any actual depth to begin with--its all simulated from the beginning. I'm not entirely sure how depth-of-field simulations work in animation, but my understanding is that its a composite effect of some kind. When I photograph a man standing in front of a building, the building is actually ten feet behind him and thus the depth of field actually falls off in a genuine way, but in animation the BG is not actually ten feet behind the subject, its all flat to begin with.

Sorry, those links are protected from hotlinking so you have to re-enter them once you first try to load them. (Or load the main website just before trying to view the image. Ehh, try loading this page before clicking on the second link: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews39/the_counterfeiters_blu-ray.htm )

Otherwise, with some Disney works there was a way where they'd layer different levels of the final image together. I'm pretty sure this was done in Sleeping beauty but I can't say for sure without checking. I'll try to find the images I saw (which were goofy with respect to focus) and post them later.

As for the rest, you're definitely right that film grain is so large that it doesn't match up with our basic sight. But, something feels natural about it (beyond the fact that I'm simply accustomed to it I think) and I'll just have to keep guessing what that is (next time the issue pops up in my mind at any rate).

Yeah, Disney used a multi-plane camera to composite different layers together to create the illusion of depth.  I haven't watched Sleeping Beauty in a while, so I can't specifically say if it was used in that film, but it had definitely been created by then, so I would imagine that it was.

A little bit off-topic, but what's the deal with this new Sleeping Beauty release anyway?  I'm not planning on getting it because I got the 2-disc set that was released a few years ago.  Is there any real difference besides another new restoration and the fact that it is officially part of the Platinum Collection line now (I always assumed the previous one was since it was a 2-disc set released during the Platinum Era with the same kinds of special features and documentaries that the Platinum Collection has overall)?

Gaffer Tape said:

A little bit off-topic, but what's the deal with this new Sleeping Beauty release anyway?

The release you and I purchased a few years ago was a "special edition" and was not a part of the more in-depth restoration work going on with other titles. This new Sleeping Beauty release reflects the latter, "platinum" restoration techniques:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris101308.html

The new set is basically for the Blu-ray, but it also has a DVD copy of the newer restoration. In addition to higher resolution (with the Blu-ray) we get to see more of the image from a completely restored aspect ratio. However, there are problems:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/archives/2008/10/sleeping_beauty_bluray_impress.html

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/sleeping-beauty-blu-ray-doesnt-mean-better

http://louromano.blogspot.com/2008/10/sleeping-beauty-closer-look.html

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3445320-post23.html

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3446879-post55.html

http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/10/14/sleeping-beauty-on-bd-mostly-astonishing.html

I'm mostly angry about the colors, but I'm also insulted that Disney would destroy the original film by thinking it's their duty to remove the grain. Screen shots like this look horrible after the grain is tinkered with:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/sb7.jpg

I guess that shot was always out of focus (and not intentionally out of focus due to layering), but my criticism from a few posts up remains the same. Out of focus areas of an image, while still being indistinct with grain, still have a fine texture to them and I like that more.

Why can't we be given the same product that Walt Disney and Animators judged worthy for us to see? Why, instead, do we now have someone deciding that film grain look like "noise" on Blu-ray (when it actually shouldn't if properly encoded)? Who then decides that brush strokes and paper textures should be removed (which probably wouldn't have been as noticeable had the left the grain intact)?

I'm going to stick with my earlier DVD until Disney can do a proper high-def transfer. We may never get it, but I don't care. It's not worth the money. The same thing goes with the recent release of Nightmare before Christmas.

In that Robert Harris piece the guy from disney studios he is interviewing said they used an IB technicolor print as color reference and the original animation cels.

But when he said they were completely working in the digital realm and that the work was done by Lowry, i though oh no.lol.  Their algorithms delete film grain as noise, unless they work frame by frame or properly watch the equipment and what they are doing.  If calibrated right they don't necessarily have to remove grain.  Lowry only does it at the request of their clients.

They started out with a 4k scan of the original Negative and the color tweaking and touch ups i believe were done in 2k.

The film was done of the Sucessive Exposure method and not 3 strip technicolor.  The Techirama process almost identical to 8 perf vistavision having a wider negative area. the original aspect ratio was 2:55:1.

I noticed the dvnr on the blu ray has softened the image.  Almost like they are trying to blur out the grain, and by doing so remove an integral layer of the image.

Too bad the closest to the original theatrical colors is the overly cropped 1987 CAV release on laserdisc that is severely faded.  Though the 2003 dvd is a close approximation not without its faults. 

The new one is almost a completely different take on the colors in some scenes.

Maybe the grain is there on the restored film prints?

Video and film are 2 seperate things.  Maybe they are trying to please home video hdtv owners and not the elite film people who want video to look like film.

Can a Blu Ray look like a 35mm film at home?

Just wondering because it don't have an hdtv or a blu ray player myself.  If they scan in all of the image grain and all at 4k does the image look stunning at 1080P.  Some examples would be helpful to those who don't know the difference.

Wait.  You bring up something I meant to ask before, Tiptup.  I remember the new ads talking about the aspect ratio, and that confused me, because I thought that the 2003 DVD preserved that.  I mean, the special features on that DVD made a big deal about the "new-fangled" process they used to make the ratio for that movie, so I assumed it was accurately done for the DVD.  Is that incorrect?

Oh, and what's the problem with the new Nightmare set?  I got it for my girlfriend for her birthday.  I'd never seen the movie before then, so I had nothing to compare it to.  Is it the standard Disney problem of cutting down the ratio so that it perfectly fits a widescreen TV in 16:9?  Or is it another DNR problem?

EDIT:  Ah, wait, I see on your link.  The OAR of Sleeping Beauty was 2.55:1, but the 2003 release was 2.35:1.

skyjedi2005 said:

Maybe the grain is there on the restored film prints?

Video and film are 2 seperate things.  Maybe they are trying to please home video hdtv owners and not the elite film people who want video to look like film.

Can a Blu Ray look like a 35mm film at home?

Just wondering because it don't have an hdtv or a blu ray player myself.  If they scan in all of the image grain and all at 4k does the image look stunning at 1080P.  Some examples would be helpful to those who don't know the difference.

The 4k and 2k scans of the direct negative should be very accurate representations of the original film. The problem is Disney giving those scanned images treatment that tries to erase all of the grain and supposedly improve the image. It's insulting to me. They should have just cleaned up the image to remove dirt, keep the grain, and then simply directed their manpower to checking each frame of the movie in detail. As it is now, I have a feeling I'd rather watch the dirty, uncleaned negative scan directly translated to Blu-ray resolution.

Otherwise, any digital video medium (such as DVD or Blu-ray) will have the look of a digital video. The nice thing about Blu-ray, however, is that it is of such a high resolution that it can capture film details within its digital video limits. It's nowhere near 35mm film, but for home video it's great. These screen captures from Godfather 3 show how gorgeous of a job Blu-ray can do at representing film:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/gfiii3.jpg

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/gfiii5.jpg

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/gfiii11.jpg

Gaffer Tape said:

Wait.  You bring up something I meant to ask before, Tiptup.  I remember the new ads talking about the aspect ratio, and that confused me, because I thought that the 2003 DVD preserved that.  I mean, the special features on that DVD made a big deal about the "new-fangled" process they used to make the ratio for that movie, so I assumed it was accurately done for the DVD.  Is that incorrect?

Yeah, from what I can gather, the 2003 release was the first home video release where we got the full widescreen image that was shown in theaters. The guy who did that restoration did a beautiful job of representing what the film looked like (for DVD resolution of course). The new DVD and Blu-ray, on the other hand, went back to the original negative that had even more space that was unseen on the edges. If you look at this page (which I also linked above), you'll see the difference between the 2003 DVD and the 2008 DVD:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3445320-post23.html

Gaffer Tape said:

Oh, and what's the problem with the new Nightmare set?  I got it for my girlfriend for her birthday.  I'd never seen the movie before then, so I had nothing to compare it to.  Is it the standard Disney problem of cutting down the ratio so that it perfectly fits a widescreen TV in 16:9?  Or is it another DNR problem?

Eh, everyone says it's great and I'm sure it's fantastic, but, on the basis of the principles involved, I just don't want to own a version of the film that has the grain removed. There are also terrible DNR mistakes they made at small portions and that's just insulting (they couldn't get a guy to okay every frame?). I can't find everything I saw before, but here's a good example:

http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/09/01/the-nightmare-before-dirt-and-scratch-removal-artefacts.html

Here's another even-handed review:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/archives/2008/09/christmas_comes_early.html