Blu-ray standalone players remain so low....

[pcslookout]

cubby1223 this is not good news at all with films like Pan's Labyrinth on Blu-ray Disc because I don't want to have to buy it from europe just to get the correct appearance version. This sucks. Just will be more expensive now.

 

[Slick5150]

That article is quite misleading actually. Film isn't SUPPOSED to have grain, its more of a side effect that gets worse over time. I agree that it isn't a huge deal, but the problem is when you convert the film to digital, it interprets the grain as part of the picture and, at higher resolutions, actually can make the grain stand out more. I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth on Blu-Ray so I can't comment on what they did to it (which I'm guessing was doing a Digital Noise Reduction of some sort, which is not a good way to go about things), but 300 on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray looked quite grainy and was supposed to as well.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
That article is quite misleading actually. Film isn't SUPPOSED to have grain, its more of a side effect that gets worse over time. I agree that it isn't a huge deal, but the problem is when you convert the film to digital, it interprets the grain as part of the picture and, at higher resolutions, actually can make the grain stand out more. I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth on Blu-Ray so I can't comment on what they did to it (which I'm guessing was doing a Digital Noise Reduction of some sort, which is not a good way to go about things), but 300 on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray looked quite grainy and was supposed to as well.

Interesting.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
That article is quite misleading actually. Film isn't SUPPOSED to have grain, its more of a side effect that gets worse over time. I agree that it isn't a huge deal, but the problem is when you convert the film to digital, it interprets the grain as part of the picture and, at higher resolutions, actually can make the grain stand out more. I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth on Blu-Ray so I can't comment on what they did to it (which I'm guessing was doing a Digital Noise Reduction of some sort, which is not a good way to go about things), but 300 on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray looked quite grainy and was supposed to as well.

Your post sort of contradicts itself (if I'm reading it correctly) because you say film isn't supposed to have grain, then go on to say 300 did have grain, which it was supposed to. I think the article before alluded to the same thing you were trying to get at with your 300 comment, in that sometimes film grain is a stylistic choice by the filmmaker and should not be 'cleaned' out of the HD version, which is something I agree with. As much as is possible I would prefer the true representation of what the filmmaker was trying to achieve when he/she originally made the film.

KT

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Slick5150
That article is quite misleading actually. Film isn't SUPPOSED to have grain, its more of a side effect that gets worse over time. I agree that it isn't a huge deal, but the problem is when you convert the film to digital, it interprets the grain as part of the picture and, at higher resolutions, actually can make the grain stand out more. I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth on Blu-Ray so I can't comment on what they did to it (which I'm guessing was doing a Digital Noise Reduction of some sort, which is not a good way to go about things), but 300 on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray looked quite grainy and was supposed to as well.

Your post sort of contradicts itself (if I'm reading it correctly) because you say film isn't supposed to have grain, then go on to say 300 did have grain, which it was supposed to. I think the article before alluded to the same thing you were trying to get at with your 300 comment, in that sometimes film grain is a stylistic choice by the filmmaker and should not be 'cleaned' out of the HD version, which is something I agree with. As much as is possible I would prefer the true representation of what the filmmaker was trying to achieve when he/she originally made the film.

KT

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. Yes, sometimes the grainy, or "gritty" look is what the filmmaker is trying to achieve. But that isn't something inherent to film, meaning that 300 and Pan's Labyrinth weren't grainy because they were shot on film, they were grainy because the Director wanted them to be. Look at a movies like Sin City or Planet Terror, both very gritty/grainy movies, but neither were even shot on film but were rather shot digitally. (Robert Rodriguez is a big fan of shooting movies digitally).

Contrast that to the grain found on old movie prints. The Director didn't want that grain to be there, it just is because of the age of the print generally. Now if you can clean it up prior to transferring it to digital, then you can take care of it. But if you just transfer it over and put it out on Blu-Ray, its not going to look as pristine as it could. Sometimes, the master reels of movies are too far gone or otherwise lost so cleaning it up isn't even a real option at that point.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Slick5150
That article is quite misleading actually. Film isn't SUPPOSED to have grain, its more of a side effect that gets worse over time. I agree that it isn't a huge deal, but the problem is when you convert the film to digital, it interprets the grain as part of the picture and, at higher resolutions, actually can make the grain stand out more. I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth on Blu-Ray so I can't comment on what they did to it (which I'm guessing was doing a Digital Noise Reduction of some sort, which is not a good way to go about things), but 300 on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray looked quite grainy and was supposed to as well.

Your post sort of contradicts itself (if I'm reading it correctly) because you say film isn't supposed to have grain, then go on to say 300 did have grain, which it was supposed to. I think the article before alluded to the same thing you were trying to get at with your 300 comment, in that sometimes film grain is a stylistic choice by the filmmaker and should not be 'cleaned' out of the HD version, which is something I agree with. As much as is possible I would prefer the true representation of what the filmmaker was trying to achieve when he/she originally made the film.

KT

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. Yes, sometimes the grainy, or "gritty" look is what the filmmaker is trying to achieve. But that isn't something inherent to film, meaning that 300 and Pan's Labyrinth weren't grainy because they were shot on film, they were grainy because the Director wanted them to be. Look at a movies like Sin City or Planet Terror, both very gritty/grainy movies, but neither were even shot on film but were rather shot digitally. (Robert Rodriguez is a big fan of shooting movies digitally).

Contrast that to the grain found on old movie prints. The Director didn't want that grain to be there, it just is because of the age of the print generally. Now if you can clean it up prior to transferring it to digital, then you can take care of it. But if you just transfer it over and put it out on Blu-Ray, its not going to look as pristine as it could. Sometimes, the master reels of movies are too far gone or otherwise lost so cleaning it up isn't even a real option at that point.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I guess for the most part it is relatively easy to tell if grain was intended or not. I just hope they avoid making overly-plastic transfers of movies that were not intended to be that way. Sin City is good example of where this would absolutely ruin the atmosphere and overall feel of the movie and the less that happens, the better of course.

KT

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Slick5150
That article is quite misleading actually. Film isn't SUPPOSED to have grain, its more of a side effect that gets worse over time. I agree that it isn't a huge deal, but the problem is when you convert the film to digital, it interprets the grain as part of the picture and, at higher resolutions, actually can make the grain stand out more. I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth on Blu-Ray so I can't comment on what they did to it (which I'm guessing was doing a Digital Noise Reduction of some sort, which is not a good way to go about things), but 300 on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray looked quite grainy and was supposed to as well.

Your post sort of contradicts itself (if I'm reading it correctly) because you say film isn't supposed to have grain, then go on to say 300 did have grain, which it was supposed to. I think the article before alluded to the same thing you were trying to get at with your 300 comment, in that sometimes film grain is a stylistic choice by the filmmaker and should not be 'cleaned' out of the HD version, which is something I agree with. As much as is possible I would prefer the true representation of what the filmmaker was trying to achieve when he/she originally made the film.

KT

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. Yes, sometimes the grainy, or "gritty" look is what the filmmaker is trying to achieve. But that isn't something inherent to film, meaning that 300 and Pan's Labyrinth weren't grainy because they were shot on film, they were grainy because the Director wanted them to be. Look at a movies like Sin City or Planet Terror, both very gritty/grainy movies, but neither were even shot on film but were rather shot digitally. (Robert Rodriguez is a big fan of shooting movies digitally).

Contrast that to the grain found on old movie prints. The Director didn't want that grain to be there, it just is because of the age of the print generally. Now if you can clean it up prior to transferring it to digital, then you can take care of it. But if you just transfer it over and put it out on Blu-Ray, its not going to look as pristine as it could. Sometimes, the master reels of movies are too far gone or otherwise lost so cleaning it up isn't even a real option at that point.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I guess for the most part it is relatively easy to tell if grain was intended or not. I just hope they avoid making overly-plastic transfers of movies that were not intended to be that way. Sin City is good example of where this would absolutely ruin the atmosphere and overall feel of the movie and the less that happens, the better of course.

KT

That I certainly agree with. Like I said, I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth on Blu-Ray but I did read a bit more about it just now and they did do some digital noise reduction on it for some reason, which absolutely could dull the picture and make things look "plastic-y". I think it probably is because they were afraid people would complain that "I thought Blu-Ray picture was supposed to be perfect. This is all grainy!". I remember seeing a couple people in the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray threads on here saying that HD-DVD sucks because they saw 300 on it and the picture was all grainy. Oy!

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Slick5150
That article is quite misleading actually. Film isn't SUPPOSED to have grain, its more of a side effect that gets worse over time. I agree that it isn't a huge deal, but the problem is when you convert the film to digital, it interprets the grain as part of the picture and, at higher resolutions, actually can make the grain stand out more. I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth on Blu-Ray so I can't comment on what they did to it (which I'm guessing was doing a Digital Noise Reduction of some sort, which is not a good way to go about things), but 300 on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray looked quite grainy and was supposed to as well.

Your post sort of contradicts itself (if I'm reading it correctly) because you say film isn't supposed to have grain, then go on to say 300 did have grain, which it was supposed to. I think the article before alluded to the same thing you were trying to get at with your 300 comment, in that sometimes film grain is a stylistic choice by the filmmaker and should not be 'cleaned' out of the HD version, which is something I agree with. As much as is possible I would prefer the true representation of what the filmmaker was trying to achieve when he/she originally made the film.

KT

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. Yes, sometimes the grainy, or "gritty" look is what the filmmaker is trying to achieve. But that isn't something inherent to film, meaning that 300 and Pan's Labyrinth weren't grainy because they were shot on film, they were grainy because the Director wanted them to be. Look at a movies like Sin City or Planet Terror, both very gritty/grainy movies, but neither were even shot on film but were rather shot digitally. (Robert Rodriguez is a big fan of shooting movies digitally).

Contrast that to the grain found on old movie prints. The Director didn't want that grain to be there, it just is because of the age of the print generally. Now if you can clean it up prior to transferring it to digital, then you can take care of it. But if you just transfer it over and put it out on Blu-Ray, its not going to look as pristine as it could. Sometimes, the master reels of movies are too far gone or otherwise lost so cleaning it up isn't even a real option at that point.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I guess for the most part it is relatively easy to tell if grain was intended or not. I just hope they avoid making overly-plastic transfers of movies that were not intended to be that way. Sin City is good example of where this would absolutely ruin the atmosphere and overall feel of the movie and the less that happens, the better of course.

KT

That I certainly agree with. Like I said, I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth on Blu-Ray but I did read a bit more about it just now and they did do some digital noise reduction on it for some reason, which absolutely could dull the picture and make things look "plastic-y". I think it probably is because they were afraid people would complain that "I thought Blu-Ray picture was supposed to be perfect. This is all grainy!". I remember seeing a couple people in the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray threads on here saying that HD-DVD sucks because they saw 300 on it and the picture was all grainy. Oy!

It seems as if they need to be very selective with their releases otherwise the uninformed will end up killing, or at least hurting, the format. If the majority of consumers do not get perceived value (in this case a flawless picture) for their investment, they will stop buying or at least tell others not to buy, which would not be good for the rest of us.

KT

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Contrast that to the grain found on old movie prints. The Director didn't want that grain to be there, it just is because of the age of the print generally. Now if you can clean it up prior to transferring it to digital, then you can take care of it. But if you just transfer it over and put it out on Blu-Ray, its not going to look as pristine as it could. Sometimes, the master reels of movies are too far gone or otherwise lost so cleaning it up isn't even a real option at that point.

And what exactly would you like the studios to do? It is impossible to recreate the movie as it looked the first day it was screened decades ago. The larger your screen size is, the more DNR sticks out like a sore thumb.

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Film isn't SUPPOSED to have grain

Grain is the very definition of film.

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Film isn't SUPPOSED to have grain

Grain is the very definition of film.

I was about to say... ridiculous to say that grain is there because of the age of the stock? Eyes wide shut, saving private ryan is full of grain (schindlers list?), and it's not because the stock is old.

Granted the director has some leeway in choosing less grainy film over film that has alot of grain (similar to regular photo film options), but that's about it. The grain in film is always there, that's how regular film works.