logo Sign In

zombie84

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Nov-2005
Last activity
12-Jan-2024
Posts
3,557

Post History

Post
#306707
Topic
Film grain is not your enemy.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306707/action/topic#306707
Time
Your assumption that grain is an undesireable "fault" of the filmstock" is incorrect. Its an accepted aesthetic trait. Its wrong to assume its undesirable--true, there may indeed be some filmmakers/DP's who would, given the choice, have preferred a clear HD-like image. But you can't just assume that every example is like this--most filmmakers and DP's not only like and want grain, but at the very least accept it as part of the aesthetic of making a motion picture. It should not be "corrected" for the simple reason that its not a "fault" to begin with, just like black and white photography.
Post
#306636
Topic
Film grain is not your enemy.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306636/action/topic#306636
Time
Originally posted by: Johnboy3434
I think losing a little detail is worth it if it means seeing absolutely nothing but the action on the film (unless, of course, the grain is part of the movie's "style"). That's what was so fantastic about the PT, RotS in particular: That mother was clean as a whistle. It looked like there was literally nothing between you and the actors. Normally you need cheap red and blue glasses to do that. So yes, grain is, and will forever remain, my enemy.


I'd say thats whats so shit about the PT: the image looks so artificial. The clarity and grainless image of HD is considered undesirable and aesthetically unpleasing by most cinematographers, and I think the absolutely piss-poor cinematography of the PT is mostly due to HD; TPM looks okay a lot of the time, theres a softness and a graineyness to it, it has an organic feel--its only in the all-digital scenes like the Gungan battle that it gets that fake, video gamey artificial look, and unfortunately AOTC and ROTS had that feeling 100% of the time. People have been sucked into the whole "clarity" thing, but bright colors and clean images do not make an artistic image IMO. Its interesting that we are witnessing the beginning of an aesthetic shift in your average person due to digital technology, but IMO its a false aesthetic, its born out of the perception that clarity and saturation=quality, one born out a confluence of video games and CGI, the development of digital cameras, and the corporate propaganda of companies trying to sell people HD technology.

But anyway as far as removing grain goes, its absolutely possible to take out all the grain without losing any detail. For proof see the OT DVDs. Back in the early 1990s we had really primitive technology so when we removed grain we were erasing part of the image--this was counterbalanced by smearing the image to cover the holes, so you had a "cleaner" image but one that wasn't as sharp. Thats basically what DVNR is. But its not like that today. Those were just filters overlayed over the image. Today we have sophisticated computer algorithims that analyse and reconstruct the image to remove grain. Its true that its artificial in some sense--you are erasing the original image, you can't erase grain without erasing the image because the grain is the image. But modern remasters aren't pot-marked by white holes, otherwise what would be the point of erasing grain, you would just end up with exact same effect only white instead of black--you need to fill in the holes with what should be there. Computer algorithms do this by analysing the pixels next to where the grain dot is and basically creating the image that should be where the hole is. So in that sense, yes, its artificial in that its computer simulated, but its virtually perfect, a perfect reconstruction of what the image would be like if it were photographed without grain. The first experiments done with this were too perfect--Lowry's first project was Citizen Kane, and not only did they erase dirt, but they erased the grain of the emulsion itself, and it ended up looking like video, it was too clear. They've since changed the algorithm so that it leaves the grain of the negative but targets dirt and such--but IMO the OT DVD's are slightly too clear looking, possibly under direction of Lucas who wanted them to match the PT (ie the new, HD-emulating, shit-tastic color-timing).

Grain on the negative should never be removed. Its the image. One should not remove grain for the same reason one should not remove flares, wires, and other limitations of the technology the film was made with, its the whole colorizing-B&W-films argument.
Post
#306351
Topic
Film grain is not your enemy.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/306351/action/topic#306351
Time
The article is right. Grain is part of the image and should not be removed, otherwise it looks like video, and film is not video. The film stocks of today are so perfect that you can get a relatively grainless image so some modern films look pretty clean and slick, thus there is the aesthetic counter-reaction in films like Minority Report where its intentionally grainy. However, its also important to keep in mind that a lot of grain is foreign, that is its not on the negative but the result of duplication and processing, and thats the grain thats the enemy. I guess one could argue that it takes a trained eye to know the difference but to me dupe grain has always stood out as looking much different than grain on the negative; I would like to think that most people can tell that grain is stylistically used in Minority Report on purpose, and that there should be some texture to film--people that argue against this are often people that don't like widescreen "because of the bars". Video noise isn't really that common anymore because our technology is so good now, its usually dupe grain that people occassionally get fooled by.
Post
#305679
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305679/action/topic#305679
Time
Originally posted by: lordjedi


I think this is what MBJ has been getting at. Once HD-DVD is gone, what makes you think the studios are going to use a higher bitrate? They have no incentive to do that. "We'll get better picture quality!" The studios don't care. All they care about is making money. With HD-DVD gone, that'll be one less expense. Why bother with going with a higher bitrate when the picture looks fine as it is?


Thats simply unfounded paranoia. Theres no extra cost for a higher bitrate. Right now their ceiling is 30 GB, so they press the buttons to make it under that. They are encoding for HD-DVD. When HD-DVD is gone, they will be encoding for Blu-Ray. Their ceiling is 50 GB so they press the buttons to make it under that. If there was extra costs associated then maybe you might have a point but theres not. The reason encodes are in the 20 GB range is because of HD-DVD--once thats gone the range will change.
Post
#305676
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305676/action/topic#305676
Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
But an encode that takes up something like 40% more space will look better. Its just science. And the reason, as I said, that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases look identical is because Blu-Ray gets the HD-DVD encode--so your not seeing its actual capability; your just seeing it play an HD-DVD encode, so of course it looks identical. The demise of HD-DVD will be beneficial because then companies can start making the Blu-ray encodes 50 GB instead of 30 GB.

I'm not sure what your issue is 30 GB versus 50 GB--theres going to be an improvement in picture. I can't see how you can dispute this.

I'm not disputing it - I'm just questioning the practicality of it. Again, if the difference were that noticeable, don'tcha think think BR would ask or pay for a newer encode? How much trouble do you really think that is? Don't you think that would be an important enough benefit for Blu-Ray to show off?


Its not the BDA that does it, its the studios. The studios don't want one to be better because they are playing both formats. Thats why they can't be bothered to do a second encode.
Post
#305671
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305671/action/topic#305671
Time
Originally posted by: dumb_kid
Exactly how many movies do you know of that use all 30Gbs, much less 50Gbs?

Here are just a couple:
Apocalypto - 34.6 GB
Casino Royale - 35.2 GB
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (with seamless branching) - 37.3 GB
Face/Off - 35.8 GB
The Fifth Element - 37.7GB
Flags of Our Fathers - 35.3 GB
Hellboy - 39.4 GB
...

for a lot more Link
All of the ones I listed were AVC encoded

Even so, it's debatable whether there's a notable quality difference, but more space is more space. Plus BR has higher data throughput which is also nice to have. The extra space is very nice to have for extra long movies (LotR) or seemless branching(dare to dream SW).


Plus extra features like PIP, video featurettes and extra audio tracks. It could mean the difference between have just a DD track or having DD and DTS, plus three commentaries and a PIP feature. More space is always better.

Post
#305668
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305668/action/topic#305668
Time
MebeJedi, I don't know which disks use how much space and what the bit rate is. But an encode that takes up something like 40% more space will look better. Its just science. And the reason, as I said, that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases look identical is because Blu-Ray gets the HD-DVD encode--so your not seeing its actual capability; your just seeing it play an HD-DVD encode, so of course it looks identical. The demise of HD-DVD will be beneficial because then companies can start making the Blu-ray encodes 50 GB instead of 30 GB.

I'm not sure what your issue is 30 GB versus 50 GB--theres going to be an improvement in picture. I can't see how you can dispute this.
Post
#305661
Topic
Wanted: HD Jurassic Park - for an edit...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305661/action/topic#305661
Time
Originally posted by: GoodMusician

Minority Report I remember reading suffered a bit not really from grain, which as you said it had for effect, but for certain color losses compared to the original image.


MR was treated to a bleach-bypass silver retention process, which gives it that cold, desaturated look; its one of Kaminski's trademarks, along with the grain--he developed this look on Saving Private Ryan. The desaturation is intentional.

I can't say I noticed the blurriness on the AMC broadcast, but I think I know what you mean because I've seen it before on a number of films shown on television--what its caused by I'm not sure, though for some reason I associate it with that subtle speed-up that is also sometimes applied (as you claim JP has had). Thats usually just a television thing. Unless you are talking about softness, which is probably just due to a less-than-steller transfer.

Post
#305639
Topic
Wanted: HD Jurassic Park - for an edit...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305639/action/topic#305639
Time
Spielberg's newer films are intentionally grainy, and they are beautiful for it. Its the style of DP Janusz Kaminski. His older films weren't meant to look grainy but a lot of the film stocks back then simply were like that--for instance, Aliens is pretty grainy, and it'll never be better unless you start erasing grain artificially but then you are erasing part of the original image.

But you are right about JP--the DVD transfer sucks and theres a bit more grain than there should be. Its dupe grain, not grain on the neg--grain on the neg should be left in but dupe grain can be nasty.
Post
#305597
Topic
Merry X0mas and a Happy New Year!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305597/action/topic#305597
Time
Originally posted by: bkev
Originally posted by: Zion
The PAL LD's seem to be cropped differently than the NTSCs in a lot of shots. Then again, I've also found differences between the DC and JSC.


So, in every single version of star wars available, we're missing footage?


Well, it comes down to a matter of millimeters on your monitor. Plus most televisions have overscan so even if it was perfect you're likely to still lose a bit.
Post
#305584
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305584/action/topic#305584
Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi


The reason they use only 30 GB sometimes is because companies are too cheap to do an encode just for Blu Ray so the HD-DVD encode is used, so HD-DVD is really lowering the standards for some Blu-Ray titles.
Exactly how many movies do you know of that use all 30Gbs, much less 50Gbs?

Well using 75% of a 50GB disk is better than 75% of a 30 GB disk.


But is the higher bitrate being used? Do you know how many reviews find the HD and BR releases to be almost identical?


The point is that its there--you can use it if you want to. With HD-DVD you're stuck. Most BR disks look identical to their HD-DVD counterparts because they are identical, its the HD-DVD encode. Once HD-DVD is gone companies can make their single encode in a 50GB capacity instead of 30 GB.

its superior in almost every way.


Not really. In addition to the above, HD-DVD customers don't have to worry about region coding or BD+.


I didn't say every way, but almost every way. The region thing I agree is a fault in some ways but its no different from what we have now with DVD, and there are region-free players available; this ought to be the least of our worries when considering the big picture.

Post
#305582
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305582/action/topic#305582
Time
Originally posted by: Zion
I read the other day that they're already working on Blu-ray/DVD combo discs. JVC proposed the technology back in 2004. It would be a 3-layer disc with a single 25GB Blu-ray layer and two 4GB SD layers. The disc can be played on regular DVD players because the Blu-ray layer is transparent to red lasers.


See, thats even worse--now the large capacity of BR is being cut in half! Theres simply no benefit of a combo disk, its a stupid, stupid marketing ploy.
Post
#305573
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305573/action/topic#305573
Time
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
Originally posted by: ferris209
Well, I just really liked the idea of Combo discs, with HD DVD on one side and SD on the other, plus the players can play SD DVD's. I also liked that HD DVD can be pressed from current DVD machines, making them cheaper in the long run. Plus, HD DVD seems to be a pretty much finished format, while I hear that BR still doesn't do half of what HD DVD can do, at least until the BD 2.0 hits. I just see things getting very expensive once Sony gets its claws sunk in.


Those are the reasons, and more, why I got HD-DVD. It can do SO MUCH MORE. Less space, yes, but most blu-ray discs use only 30 gigs anyway, so who cares? They offer same picture, but HD has more features.


The reason they use only 30 GB sometimes is because companies are too cheap to do an encode just for Blu Ray so the HD-DVD encode is used, so HD-DVD is really lowering the standards for some Blu-Ray titles. Blu-Ray has a much higher bitrate and almost twice the space, and it has special java abilities that HD-DVD doesn't--its superior in almost every way. If you are going to make a choice based on specs then theres no way you would choose HD-DVD. People ought to be going with HD-DVD for the title selection (in other words, studio support) which is now weakened since Blu-Ray has over 70% exclusive support.

And combo-disks are the stupidest things of all time. If you have HD-DVD why would you want the DVD version? Meanwhile those who don't have or even want HD-DVD have to pay an incredibly jacked up price. Its just dumb. My fear is that once HD-DVD dies companies like Paramount might start doing Blu-Ray combo disks if they ever find a way, but hopefully the poor sales and the high cost will scare them from trying.
Post
#305528
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305528/action/topic#305528
Time
Originally posted by: Zion
Well whatever Dayv's exact words, I think we can all agree that the broadcast transition will introduce more households to HD in the next two years.


Not really, people will still watch standard def, they'll only be exposed to HD if they buy an HD tv and order special channels, you can't watch HD on a normal television.

Again, this whole conversion thing is totally unrelated to HD. It just means you won't be able to use your rabbit ears antennas anymore.
Post
#305502
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305502/action/topic#305502
Time
Originally posted by: canofhumdingers
i thought bluray players were capabe of plying standard dvds as well...? don't they advertise them as upscaling regular dvds?


They can, but I think he is talking about how manufacturers can make HD-DVD's using the same machines that make DVD's, while Blu-Ray manufacturers need to get Blu-Ray pressing machines.
Post
#305486
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/305486/action/topic#305486
Time
Originally posted by: ferris209

Heh, Heh, crossed my mind and I couldn't' resist. While I hate to hear this, I too am glad there seems to be an end in sight. I sure was hoping for another tragic defeat of Sony.


I have to give them credit in that they simply designed the better format; and, you know, the alternative is Mircrosoft winning