Two personal frustrations - Film Grain and blu-rays compared to DVD

[bluskies]

(LOL, I know, someone is going to say, "I get frustrated by people who misspell 'frustrations' in the header." Sorry, did a typo but the system doesn't let me correct the header.)

I wasn't sure what to call this thread at first, but settled on "frustrations." Not with Blu-ray, but with people's opinions surrounding the Blu discs.

Two things bugging me:

1. While I am happy to know that Blu releases generally are incredibly better than the DVD release, I am tired of each Blu title that is being reviewed having to go through "So, how does it compare to the DVD?"

The reason I am frustrated by this is I was around when VHS gave way to DVD, but I certainly don't recall every review of a DVD title having to be compared to the VHS version.

As it stands, we aren't able to just say to some outsider the Blu-ray image is great. No, they require we get ahold of the old DVD release and do a side-by-side comparison.

I mean, are we going to go on and on for years, each time a Blu-ray title is issued, having to answer the question, "How does it compare to the DVD?" It will be nice when we can finally get to a point when it will become an acknowledged fact, without asking, that each Blu-ray release will be better than the DVD (I hope!).

2. Next thing that frustrates me...the subject of fillm grain. And here is where I will be flogged by the multitudes...but Blu-ray is a superior visual format and to me, I get frustrated by a number of people saying, "The more grain, the better! Damn it, I want to see more grain on screen than there is in a silo! I don't care that I can't just sit there and enjoy the movie because there is so much grain it is distracting...I want purity!" And if you disagree wth the experts, you are shunned (even if some here silently agree with you, but they dare not say anything lest they get looked down upon, too).

I just finished watching Amadeus and thought the picture quality was exceptional, so I looked up a review of it and the reviewer gave it a relatively low rating because they detected DNR and felt edge enhacement must have been used. It has been this way for a number of different Blu titles where I think the image looks great but expert reviewers say the image has been manipulated and damn the studios for trying to make the Blu-ray high definition image look better. Then I read a review of Sideways just a few minutes ago, which I bought yesterday on sale but haven't had a chance to watch yet, and the reviewer said it has soft images with enormous amounts of grain clearly visible and that is wonderful. Geez, one feels that high-def images can't be any good until you have someone over to watch a movie and they say, "What's with the ten thousand mosquitoes all over the picture? I thought high definition was supposed to be the best, clearest image there is" and you reply, "Shut up! That's film grain, that's how you know this is the best image you can get!"

I mean, what the hell's wrong with the image looking stunning? Didn't we buy Blu-ray because the image looks better and more colorful?

Sigh, go ahead, my back is bare...lay on the cat-o-nine tails.

[RiseDarthVader]

Problem is because the BDA marketed Blu-ray as "Crystal clear images" so people expect to watch a movie shot digitally. And I agree with the reviewers that say DNR is bad because its making the image lose detail for example compare these screenshots of Pans Labrynth

Grain: http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...h/b3117d0d.png

DNR applied to remove grain: http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...h/b3117d0d.png

Notice the loss of detail? Do you not want to see the movie as it was intended to be seen and projected at a cinema?

[bajor27]

Originally Posted by bluskies

I wasn't sure what to call this thread at first, but settled on "frustrations." Not with Blu-ray, but with people's opinions surrounding the Blu discs.

Two things bugging me:

1. While I am happy to know that Blu releases generally are incredibly better than the DVD release, I am tired of each Blu title that is being reviewed having to go through "So, how does it compare to the DVD?"

The reason I am frustrated by this is I was around when VHS gave way to DVD, but I certainly don't recall every review of a DVD title having to be compared to the VHS version.

As it stands, we aren't able to just say to some outsider the Blu-ray image is great. No, they require we get ahold of the old DVD release and do a side-by-side comparison.

I mean, are we going to go on and on for years, each time a Blu-ray title is issued, having to answer the question, "How does it compare to the DVD?" It will be nice when we can finally get to a point when it will become an acknowledged fact, without asking, that each Blu-ray release will be better than the DVD (I hope!).

2. Next thing that frustrates me...the subject of fillm grain. And here is where I will be flogged by the multitudes...but Blu-ray is a superior visual format and to me, I get frustrated by a number of people saying, "The more grain, the better! Damn it, I want to see more grain on screen than there is in a silo! I don't care that I can't just sit there and enjoy the movie because there is so much grain it is distracting...I want purity!" And if you disagree wth the experts, you are shunned (even if some here silently agree with you, but they dare not say anything lest they get looked down upon, too).

I just finished watching Amadeus and thought the picture quality was exceptional, so I looked up a review of it and the reviewer gave it a relatively low rating because they detected DNR and felt edge enhacement must have been used. It has been this way for a number of different Blu titles where I think the image looks great but expert reviewers say the image has been manipulated and damn the studios for trying to make the Blu-ray high definition image look better. Then I read a review of Sideways just a few minutes ago, which I bought yesterday on sale but haven't had a chance to watch yet, and the reviewer said it has soft images with enormous amounts of grain clearly visible and that is wonderful. Geez, one feels that high-def images can't be any good until you have someone over to watch a movie and they say, "What's with the ten thousand mosquitoes all over the picture? I thought high definition was supposed to be the best, clearest image there is" and you reply, "Shut up! That's film grain, that's how you know this is the best image you can get!"

I mean, what the hell's wrong with the image looking stunning? Didn't we buy Blu-ray because the image looks better and more colorful?

Sigh, go ahead, my back is bare...lay on the cat-o-nine tails.

Yep, you're going to get flogged all right :P

I do kind of agree with your first point though. I kind of enjoy looking at side by side comparisons myself, but I don't really want to read about them in a review unless it's to say that the Blu-ray looks no better than the DVD

[HKMOVIESAREBEST]

links dead.

[bluskies]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Notice the loss of detail? Do you not want to see the movie as it was intended to be seen and projected at a cinema?

But Blu-ray is a different system than film. Do you want all the grain you see at your local movie house? Isn't there some way that the image can be as clear for home video but without having to go through what is required for movie theater film projection?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by bluskies

BUt Blu-ray is a different system than film. Do you want all the grain you see at your local movie house?

Blu ray is nothing but a storage device. The goal of Blu ray movies is to replicate as perfectly as possible the original source material. So if it's shown in the theatrical print (not just the theater cuz you never know how it's setup by some stupid guy who can't run a projector) as grainy or soft, or out of focus to look a certain way then that's how we want it as. No George lucasing our movies please.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by bluskies

(LOL, I know, someone is going to say, "I get frustrated by people who misspell 'frustrations' in the header." Sorry, did a typo but the system doesn't let me correct the header.)

I corrected your title to spare you the infamy.

I agree with the first point. "Better than DVD" doesn't cut it. It's a bit like asking "does the DVD look better than VHS?" back in 2000.

Not only can BD look better than DVD, it can look and sound 90% as good as a theatrical print. So if I only get 75%, I get frustrated too.

Now, your second gripe I can't agree with. Firstly, because grain is an inherent component of film. Secondly, because grain removal processes often have the side effect of also removing fine detail from the picture. So you end up with a cleaner image, but a softer one. Some studios then sharpen the picture, so you have a softened-sharpened picture with no real detail and edge halos. Who likes that?

[bluskies]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Now, your second gripe I can't agree with. Firstly, because grain is an inherent component of film. Secondly, because grain removal processes often have the side effect of also removing fine detail from the picture. So you end up with a cleaner image, but a softer one. Some studios then sharpen the picture, so you have a softened-sharpened picture with no real detail and edge halos. Who likes that?

LOL, I wouldn't mind film grain if it was undetectable. You don't notice it in the theater because that is the way it is presented, film run through a projector. But on home video, especially HDTV, you see the grain. Anybody here see That's Entertainment on Blu? It's practically unwatchable due to the amount of grain, especially in the b&w sequences.

[assydingo]

Honestly I dislike both. DNR is the worse of two evils though... and one evil must exist so I'd rather it be grain.

But that being said... it really shows how horrible certain scenes were shot.

[RiseDarthVader]

No the reason you dont see grain at a cinema is because no matter what it will always be out of focused unless it's digital which remains in focus much longer then 35mm projectors. So thats why you dont notice it at a cinema but notice it at home. So with Blu-ray or Digital Cinema we are seeing the movies as close to the original negative as possible. And also when prints are duplicated every generation loses resolution. So combine out of focus projectors, lower resolution prints and dying projector bulbs you get barely visible grain at the cinemas. While on Blu-ray the factors are reduced and people here that own projectors know when it is out of focused and fix it immediatly while at the cinemas you might have 2 projectionists starting and ending movie sessions in 16 cinemas.

[bluskies]

Let me ask this...Do you believe it is better to have a Blu-ray title that shows a film picture-wise, grainy and all, as it appears in the theater but ends up being reviewed as only a 3 out of 5 Blu PQ, or possibly a "sharpened" image Blu-ray release that looks better and gets a higher PQ rating?

[graf1k]

There's nothing wrong with comparing a Blu-ray to it's DVD counterpart in theory, but the fact that it happens that way so often still could reflect negatively on the format and the studios. The sad fact is a lot of releases on Bluray don't live up to the potential of the format, whether it's lossy audio, barebones extras for a movie where the DVD had extras, or a bad image, whatever the cause.

That said, in the case of a movie like 28 Days Later or to some extent the Grindhouse films, it's a valid question because of the way the films were shot.

As for the issue of grain, sure I sympathize. Excessive grain can be just as distracting and annoying to some people as DNR is to others. That said, because of filming decisions or methods, some movies are just going to have a lot of grain and personally, while I like as clear an image as possible, I'd rather have the movie as close to the way it looked in theaters as possible. I think once you start tinkering with the way a movie looks, it's not too long before studios or directors take it too far and completely ruin the way a movie looks, like some people would argue Lucas did with the original trilogy or the way anyone can see Friedkin did to The French Connection.

[RiseDarthVader]

I would rather see the Blu-ray transfer as close as possible to the soruce then have excessive DNR applied and EE which produces halos around objects which is IMO more annoying because you LOSE detail and you create artificial "details" that were not there. For example go to this website http://www.videophile.info/Guide_EE/Page_01.htm notice how the EE makes it have terrible details and it makes it APPEAR to have more details but it actually has a lot less.

[Grubert]

Exactly. After reading the reviews, I'm likelier to spend my money on Raging Bull than Amadeus.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Now, your second gripe I can't agree with. Firstly, because grain is an inherent component of film. Secondly, because grain removal processes often have the side effect of also removing fine detail from the picture. So you end up with a cleaner image, but a softer one. Some studios then sharpen the picture, so you have a softened-sharpened picture with no real detail and edge halos. Who likes that?

That's where digital will come in and save the day, no 'grain' to remove.

Logan

[FIDDYPOP]

Sometimes excessive film grain does take me out of a movie. For instance when watching the original release of Full Metal Jacket it looks like you are watching the film with a thin coat of vaseline over your eyes and that did kind of suck.

[P@t_Mtl]

Unfortunatly grain is something that is not well understood by the general public and what DNR does to the details. I know many people who look at BD and go "it's crappy, it's grainy!"

What I sometime think is that "everyday joe" will come to look at grain as bad transfert and say "well DVD is better" not understanding the difference. I know personaly I am tired of explaining it to the people around me.