The worst DNR Blu-ray ever?

[Blu-21]

Which Blu-Ray transfer in your humble opinion suffers the worst from DNR?

Some of the worst I've seen are:

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Patton 40th Anniversary Edition
Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition
Gladiator

[Kryptonic]

Phantom Menace isn't bad at all. A couple of obvious shots, but not much else.

Predator and Near Dark are clearly the worst.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Phantom Menace isn't bad at all. A couple of obvious shots, but not much else.

Predator and Near Dark are clearly the worst.

The exterior shots of the buildings and infrastructure looked great,, but the shots of the actors themselves just looked so soft with hardly any fine detail not even in close ups. It looked way too smooth and processed. Its a shame because with the new colour timing that was approved for the film and no DNR coated to give it the "illusion" that it was shot digitally like the other 2 prequels even though it wasn't, and it had the potential to look the best out of the whole saga seeing as it was the last of the Star Wars films to be shot on traditional 35mm with presumably better camera stocks and filters that were used for the OT in the 70's and 80's.

[Blu-21]

Case in point, this comparsen shot here. - http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...ess=#vergleich

The DVD transfer was horrible overall and for the most part, the Blu-Ray even with all its DNR, still easily kills it, but this particular screenshot to me remarkably shows more actual fine detail in the DVD version then the Blu-Ray version, which just goes to show how badly the digital scrubbing was. It just looks so flat and smooth.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Case in point, this comparsen shot here. - http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...ess=#vergleich

The DVD transfer was horrible overall and for the most part, the Blu-Ray even with all its DNR, still easily kills it, but this particular screenshot to me remarkably shows more actual fine detail in the DVD version then the Blu-Ray version, which just goes to show how badly the digital scrubbing was. It just looks so flat and smooth.

You're not helping your case with that comparison. The Blu-ray is clearly superior in every way. There's more detail in the Blu-ray.

[kemcha]

I think DNR has become a necessity but studios also have a big problem with abusing DNR to the point where their use of this procedure happens to damage the film that they are using it on. Take Every Which Way But Loose and Under Siege ... they have a lot of DNR and you can tell where someone went nuts with the process and actually ended up destroying these films.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

You're not helping your case with that comparison. The Blu-ray is clearly superior in every way. There's more detail in the Blu-ray.

Like I said, the Blu-Ray generally is much much better then the poorly mastered DVD, but that close-up was an example of just how badly scrubbed the Blu-Ray is which has a tremendous effect with picking up fine detail on people's faces. I'm not kidding when I say that the DVD version of that pic, whist covered in noise and being pretty average itself, still looks as though to have more detail on her face then the Blu-Ray cap. I can see what looks like actual skin pores where as the Blu-Ray looks too smooth and clean and digital. Liam Neeson is an even stronger offender of this through out with medium shots and close-ups looking as flat as a pancake.

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by kemcha

I think DNR has become a necessity

???

[kemcha]

If you're going to quote me, at least have the respect to quote my exact remarks. My original remark, unedited:

I think DNR has become a necessity but studios also have a big problem with abusing DNR to the point where their use of this procedure happens to damage the film that they are using it on. Take Every Which Way But Loose and Under Siege ... they have a lot of DNR and you can tell where someone went nuts with the process and actually ended up destroying these films.

You simply took my comment out of context.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Patton 40th Anniversary Edition
Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition
Gladiator

Those three right there are the most commonly-referenced examples of worst DNR ever.

If there's any I would add, it might be the UK edition of Cannibal Holocaust, which I assume DNR was applied, because it looks so smeary that virtually all detail is obliterated. It might even be worse than the three listed above.

I know movies like Star Wars I and II, GoldenEye, TDK, and a few others get a lot of flak for their DNR use, but if anything, I think those are still very much watchable. Aliens might be the one and only case where DNR is used but never actually harms the image.

[amoergosum]

@kemcha

So what did you mean by "I think DNR has become a necessity" ?

[The Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Which Blu-Ray transfer in your humble opinion suffers the worst from DNR?

Some of the worst I've seen are:

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Patton 40th Anniversary Edition
Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition
Gladiator

Agree. Although I wouldn't say it was terrible, it should have been so much better. The DNR was unnecessary. Some shots look great, some, especially close ups of poor Qui-Gonn, not so much

As for Gladiator, only the first release has it. The re-release is much much better.

[Geoff D]

The Longest Day, no question. It's atrocious.

[Bob Schlapowitz]

I'd like to throw The Bg Lebowski and Army of Darkness into the discussion.

[kemcha]

I just mean that most older films haven't been taken care of. If you look at such films as the original Star Wars film, Lucas had stated that when he was planning the first restoration that the film was degrading and that work needed to be done on the film to maintain it for the next 20 or so years. Films made back in the 60's and 70's where the quality isn't up to the current technology that we see in today's HDTVs and Ultra HDTV's, and even as these HDTVs get larger in size, restoration of these older films is going to require some form of DNR.

Gettinig to my point, on older films, some studios approach DNR as onmly using the process where it's absolutely necessary. However, I've seen some films where it looked like an idiot took DNR to the extreme. Take a look at such films as "Every Which Way But Loose", "Under Siege" and even, what was it someone had remarked, one of the James Bond films, Goldfinger, it might have been, where it looked like someone butchered the PQ of the film by using DNR so much that it looked like someone took an eraser and wasn't paying attention to what they were doing.

On the other hand, I've seen studios like Disney who have produced some of the finest remastered Blu-rays that we've ever seen. When done right, and used sparingly, DNR can bring great benefits to older films. I'm not saying that it should be used with every film but when a film can benefit by using it sparingly, older films can benefit from the process.

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by kemcha

When done right, and used sparingly, DNR can bring great benefits to older films.

DNR will reduce detail...no matter how sparingly it is used. So how could it bring benefit to any transfer?

Here's a good quote:

"There's another thing I keep hearing a lot. And it's completely wrong. And that is; People have this mindset that 'oh - I thought Blu-ray was supposed to provide crisp, clean, perfect images for everything. Why do these old movies look all grainy?'. Because those old films were filmed with film. Film is composed of film-grain. If you remove the film-grain you remove the image, if you reduce the film-grain you reduce the detail."

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ3CArAmOeA#t=3m46s

[YodasFootPowder]

Nothing pains me more than the waxy mess that is Predator: UHE!

That said, I was under the assumption/impession that the original release of Gladiator wasn't even so much DNR, but an outdated, shitty master as well.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Predator UHE was the worst I've seen in person.

[Rizor]

The 40-Year Old Virgin

https://images2.static-bluray.com/re...01_5_1080p.jpg
https://images.static-bluray.com/rev...01_4_1080p.jpg

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The Longest Day, no question. It's atrocious.

THANK YOU! I don't feel that The Longest Day is mentioned enough in these discussions. I actually think that the Longest day looks a lot worse than Patton since TLD was shot in 35mm CinemaScope with anamorphic lenses. This is inherantly is less sharp and less detailed than the 65mm stock which Patton was shot with. So after the DNR is applied, there is even less detail to be seen and it actually looks overall worse than Patton (at least to my eyes). A reissue would be very profitable and would look great (take a look at The Hustler: another Fox B&W CinemaScope Blu, for an idea of how this could look) What's so sad is that Fox seems to have no plans to release a proper BD of TLD where I seriously feel it is the worst DNR'd blu ray out there second only to the Predator UHE, which is unwatchable. But, maybe we'll see something on the 70th anniversary of D-Day in 2014.
With regard to Predator, there's a chance that Fox just reused the same outdated film transfer from the2008 release and then DNR smeared it to Hell, tweaked the color and sharpness, and used a little EE.