Best Blu-ray Deals

Best Blu-ray Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | Price drops  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Japan
The Strain: The Complete First Season (Blu-ray)
$29.99
Kingdom of Heaven (Blu-ray)
$5.00
Banshee: The Complete Second Season (Blu-ray)
$13.99
Poltergeist II: The Other Side / Poltergeist III (Blu-ray)
$7.99
Oculus (Blu-ray)
$7.99
The Book Thief (Blu-ray)
$7.99
Jurassic World 3D Limited Edition Gift Set (Blu-ray)
$79.96
Mission: Impossible Quadrilogy (Blu-ray)
$21.98
X-Men: Days of Future Past - The Rogue Cut (Blu-ray)
$49.99
Cowboy Bebop: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$29.99
Home (Blu-ray)
$19.99
Rick and Morty: Season One (Blu-ray)
$14.99
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Blu-ray Movies - North America > Wish Lists

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-30-2015, 04:11 AM   #2361
KMFDMvsEnya KMFDMvsEnya is online now
Active Member
 
Jun 2014
UT
Default

Not Mickey but the mouse house does distribute Studio Ghibli films in the US.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...ostcount=51959

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post
How about a Studio Ghibli/Disney Star Wars combo!
SW: Porco Rosso One

-Yes I know the X-wing is not red but my PS skills are not that awesome and I am lazy.

Best regards,
KvE
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2015, 12:29 PM   #2362
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray Champion
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
945
1
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by infiniteCR View Post
Geoff I always learn so much from your posts....and yet again you hit me with a new one, the 'lowry process'. So after just getting done with reading about the 70s and the Apollo missions films, I'm curious how this relates to present day restoration processes. Does this one have some notable pro's and con's that differ from some of the other processes?
If you head to the bottom of this page in the Terminator thread and read on from post #5899 http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....lowry&page=295 you'll get an idea of what it entails.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
infiniteCR (06-30-2015)
Old 06-30-2015, 05:45 PM   #2363
infiniteCR infiniteCR is offline
Active Member
 
Jun 2014
2
Default

Oh, that was an impressive and fascinating discussion on the topic! Thanks
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2015, 07:23 PM   #2364
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray Champion
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
945
1
2
Default

And as a postscript to all that de-grain/re-grain talk, it's worth mentioning that there are companies out there that specialise in adding grain to productions, grain that's been scanned from actual film stock so the re-graining is as authentic as possible. http://cinegrain.com/media/
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2015, 01:11 AM   #2365
infiniteCR infiniteCR is offline
Active Member
 
Jun 2014
2
Default

Geoff,

So I've been thinking about this discussion for the last day and find the Lowry process fascinating, and its led me to form a basic question that I hope I can ask without sounding heretical:

If the grain is now extractable without losing any detail, why bother putting it back in?

For instance, I don't know if you've seen the opening shot of Top Gun on the 3D disc that has the most grain I've ever seen due to the lighting and film used, I can't imagine anyone would object to 'losing' some of the grain if it could be done with no loss to the detail.

Isn't the Grain a form of high frequency noise? If you could truly lose the 'noise' and not the detail, wouldn't you have more bitrate/bandwidth for the actual detail?

Sorry to go off topic, but regarding the low lighting in the Abyss, I'd have to imagine that the blacks would look a bit better if they were less noisy than the actual film.

Anyway, just some of the random thoughts I had based on the new info
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2015, 02:43 AM   #2366
KMFDMvsEnya KMFDMvsEnya is online now
Active Member
 
Jun 2014
UT
Default

I vaguely recall that either Van Ling or someone else knowledgeable, perhaps answered at HTF.com, that Cameron misspoke in overstating about how Aliens was handled in regards to grain reduction. Leading to a perpetuated myth as true.

Rather the film was not wholly degrained but instead had a meticulous examination and removal of visual flaws. A judicial processing to the grain depending on the shot.

I have been working on a project that has had me examining various scenes in meticulous detail from the BR and I have not seen a lick of typical DNR visual artifacts. No halos, slow grain, smearing, lost fine visual details, or hocky fuzzy artifacts intertwined along hairlines. Nor have I seen anything similar to artifacts that can be introduced by superresolution processing.

There are various shots where the grain structure changes and is not completely uniform to the majority of the rest, with a few shots they are optical blow ups resulting in enlarged grain and the appearance of soft focus. Such as in the closeup shot of Vasquez shouting "Let's rock!"

If they truly did completely degrain Aliens, doubtful, then it is the gold standard and it is surprising more films have not be submitted to such a miraculous process if it retains so much fine detail without introducing visual artifacts.

Hopefully I can find the quote, assuming it exists, and I'll post it.

Best regards,
KvE

BTW The 2D transfer of Titanic looks fantastic but the 3D version has various DNR artifacts that are not caused by the 3D conversion, which there are plenty of those.
So if Reliance has this mythical degraining tool at its disposal then the 3D version of Titanic should not exhibit those artifacts.


***
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...gy-in-blu-ray/
" I've had 35mm prints of both Alien and Aliens, and have seen Aliens in 70mm. What I can easily tell you about the set is that both Alien and Aliens are the best that I've ever personally seen, with audio that will test even the largest home theater's amps and speakers. Detail, black levels, color, densities and all else are letter perfect. The discussions on line regarding director James Cameron de-graining Aliens comes down to miscommunication. It appears that some of the heavier grain has been massaged, but the film looks like film, and better than it ever has." - RAH

Last edited by KMFDMvsEnya; 07-02-2015 at 02:57 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
infiniteCR (07-02-2015)
Old 07-02-2015, 02:49 AM   #2367
Bates_Motel Bates_Motel is offline
Special Member
 
Bates_Motel's Avatar
 
Jul 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by infiniteCR View Post
Geoff,

So I've been thinking about this discussion for the last day and find the Lowry process fascinating, and its led me to form a basic question that I hope I can ask without sounding heretical:

If the grain is now extractable without losing any detail, why bother putting it back in?

For instance, I don't know if you've seen the opening shot of Top Gun on the 3D disc that has the most grain I've ever seen due to the lighting and film used, I can't imagine anyone would object to 'losing' some of the grain if it could be done with no loss to the detail.

Isn't the Grain a form of high frequency noise? If you could truly lose the 'noise' and not the detail, wouldn't you have more bitrate/bandwidth for the actual detail?

Sorry to go off topic, but regarding the low lighting in the Abyss, I'd have to imagine that the blacks would look a bit better if they were less noisy than the actual film.

Anyway, just some of the random thoughts I had based on the new info
Film IS grain. For many people, grain is what gives a movie that "movie" look, as opposed to Tv show on video, or how HD productions can sometimes look like video games. It's a texture that's chemically part of the image itself, always moving, always random. The grain is just as much alive, in a way, as the images themselves.

I don't mind light grain removal, and as good as Aliens looks, there are a number of instances where it does cross over into a DNR/video look, because there's no way to remove grain and NOT have it alter the image. Lowry just does it in a way that's the least damaging, but adding it back in to a degree also masks the fact that it was removed in the first place in an attempt to keep the image looking natural.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
infiniteCR (07-02-2015)
Old 07-02-2015, 03:01 AM   #2368
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray Champion
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
945
1
2
Default

KMF: I know, it's not a uniform grain field that's been slathered all over Aliens, it really does change from shot to shot as it should do, and that's why Lowry's process (in latter years) has become virtually transparent. You asked the question of why doesn't everyone do it if it's so miraculous, but the answer is simple: miracles cost money. A lot of money.

InfiniteCR: grain brings with it a sense of texture that is analogous with how film should look. Remove that texture and you remove the film look; without wanting to sound like an arse, for some people it's not just about about how much brightly-coloured pin-sharp 'pop' they can get out of their TV, it's about getting the image as close to film as possible.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
infiniteCR (07-02-2015)
Old 07-02-2015, 03:29 AM   #2369
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray Champion
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
945
1
2
Default

Oh, and regarding RAH's post: he was allaying the fears of people that the movie had been severely DNR'ed and now looked awful because Cameron had mentioned how it had been "degrained and uprezzed" in a promo video which got folks all in a tizzy.

RAH was basically saying "it's not some waxy-faced DNR disaster, you can rest easy" without getting into the whys and wherefores of the actual processes used to get there, which would only have caused more confusion at that point (and clearly still does). IMO Cameron wasn't speaking out of turn, they did degrain it so they could work their patented mojo on it, and then they grained it back on up again, toning down some of the heaviest grain in the process but retaining the basic visual language of how the grain was originally arranged (for want of a better word).

I know it sounds like witchcraft, but (as I've said before) bear in mind that grain replication has been part of the digital filmmaking toolbox for about 25 years so it's no wonder that some companies have become rather good at it during that time, offering up entire libraries of different emulsions, and Lowry themselves have caught up thanks to having someone like RAH around when he worked on the Godfather restoration with them.

Last edited by Geoff D; 07-02-2015 at 03:37 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2015, 03:44 AM   #2370
infiniteCR infiniteCR is offline
Active Member
 
Jun 2014
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post
KMF: I know, it's not a uniform grain field that's been slathered all over Aliens, it really does change from shot to shot as it should do, and that's why Lowry's process (in latter years) has become virtually transparent. You asked the question of why doesn't everyone do it if it's so miraculous, but the answer is simple: miracles cost money. A lot of money.

InfiniteCR: grain brings with it a sense of texture that is analogous with how film should look. Remove that texture and you remove the film look; without wanting to sound like an arse, for some people it's not just about about how much brightly-coloured pin-sharp 'pop' they can get out of their TV, it's about getting the image as close to film as possible.
Thanks for the answers (to you and everyone). I enjoy the texture myself. However , when musing about it I also consider that directors and photographers sometimes have to make compromises in certain lighting that result in more grain than they might want, but are constrained by the film they use - if they didn't need to make the compromise I'd imagine it would follow that they would have produced that scene with less grain in an alternate universe not constrained by the same issues. Who knows maybe as they put it back in they also put less back in for those situations to keep the overall effect/texture more consistent.

Anyhow, just thinking out loud. Love that we get these films with the high quality we do these days. Now give me the abyss!
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2015, 04:03 AM   #2371
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray Champion
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
945
1
2
Default

Criterion did something similar with a Godard or Truffaut film recently. Because the director had blown up a number of shots to get tighter on the actors, those shots naturally looked grainier and rougher than others around them. When they consulted the DP about it, he gave them his blessing to reduce the grain on those scenes. (It wouldn't be the first time that opticals have been grain reduced during a new restoration.)

Last edited by Geoff D; 07-02-2015 at 04:10 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2015, 05:05 AM   #2372
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray Champion
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
945
1
2
Default

As for the "mythical" artefact-free qualities of the degraining algorithms, people seem to keep labouring under the illusion that all such practices are indiscriminate, heavy-handed bludgeons. I suppose I can understand why, given the hangover of certain mastering practices from the DVD era (where precision wasn't of key importance, given the lower resolution) that have plagued far too many Blu-rays from the likes of Universal and Paramount, but, as with grain replication, degraining has also been part of the feature film toolset for a long time.

It's of huge importance to digital VFX because it's far easier to degrain, comp in the CG element then regrain, than pasting the CG over the top of the grain and then painting grain in manually over the CG object(s). Again, this is something that's been worked on and refined for a long time on features, having been honed into precision instruments while home video departments used cheaper and much more rudimentary tools, and it's only fairly recently that that level of expertise has crossed over into the realm of restoration. But it's worth noting that proprietary feature-film-quality processing comes in at proprietary feature-film-quality prices, e.g. Synapse were quoted upwards of $100K to restore Demons 2 via the Lowry process.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2015, 12:31 AM   #2373
Maggot Maggot is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Maggot's Avatar
 
Oct 2009
United States
7
714
108
75
Default

We did get a lovely release announcement from FOX regarding a boatload of crap titles......
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Blu-ray Movies - North America > Wish Lists


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:01 AM.