Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Wait a minute you're saying that the bitrate meter is reading all the tracks simultaneously while the disc is playing adding audio + video to the reading, even the unused ones? That is wrong.

This is true. Whether you use it or not those things are mutli-plexed into the video. The only way it isn't is if it is a completely seperate encode (like I Am Legend). That is why you can turn it on and off on the fly.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

This is true. Whether you use it or not those things are mutli-plexed into the video. The only way it isn't is if it is a completely seperate encode (like I Am Legend). That is why you can turn it on and off on the fly.

Let me see If i understod your post correctly, you're saying that the video bitrate meter, that sometimes reads down to 0, is reading all the added audio/video tracks/extras, even when it's saying 4.6 Mb/s for the LPCM audio and 0 Mb/s for the video simultaneously?

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Let me see If i understod your post correctly, you're saying that the video bitrate meter, that sometimes reads down to 0, is reading all the added audio/video tracks/extras, even when it's saying 4.6 Mb/s for the LPCM audio and 0 Mb/s for the video simultaneously?

No. The video is on its own. But if there is a true Bonus View video substream it should be reporting it if there is data there since it is muxed in with the main video, even if you're not using it. I could be wrong on this but that is what I've been told many times before by encoders.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

I just watched The Counterfeiters last night and it is a title I can see some being on the fence about. Great looking image, but the amount of grain varies considerably from scene to scene and at times it borders on excessive. This is obviously intentional but that doesn't mean the majority of people will like it.

Keep in mind that this Austrian film was shot utilizing a 16mm sync sound camera with the super 16mm film format…….which was subsequently shown theatrically at 35mm.

The Blu-ray production attempts to duplicate the theatrical appearance as close as possible.

[WickyWoo]

It was my understanding that WB processed and distributed New Line titles for some time now. Is that not the case?

The Dark City disc was done under New Line, just not released until now. Be Kind Rewind is the last disc AUTHORED by New Line, and the last one to carry their logos on the box, but not the last one released that they had done

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

It would be nice if video processing manufacturers came out with a solid grain reducer that could be incorporated into displays. Silicon Optix makes a great one for compression noise, but it doesn't do a lot for film grain. This would allow studios to preserve the INTENDED grain structure of the film and allow end users to either eliminate it or reduce it to their liking. Black bar haters have options since most widescreen displays have an overscan or aspect ratio option that will virtually eliminate bars.

I agree completely, and have said much the same thing many times. Let the encoding be as close to the source as reasonable, and then let the consumers dial-in the adjustments they want.

That way even 300 could be "cleaned-up" for those who refuse to get it.

Gary

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

It would be nice if video processing manufacturers came out with a solid grain reducer that could be incorporated into displays. Silicon Optix makes a great one for compression noise, but it doesn't do a lot for film grain. This would allow studios to preserve the INTENDED grain structure of the film and allow end users to either eliminate it or reduce it to their liking. Black bar haters have options since most widescreen displays have an overscan or aspect ratio option that will virtually eliminate bars.

Just some thoughts.

In theory, makes sense.

In practice, it won't work.

The vast majority of "black bar" and film grain haters are obviously fairly ignorant about such matters and based on my experience, they are fairly ignorant about their display and/or player's ability to use DNR and zoom features.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

In theory, makes sense.

In practice, it won't work.

The vast majority of "black bar" and film grain haters are obviously fairly ignorant about such matters and based on my experience, they are fairly ignorant about their display and/or player's ability to use DNR and zoom features.

It's true, those who are that keen to learn usually are keen because they love movies and if they love movies they tend to want the WHOLE movie in it's original format.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

.......Let the encoding be as close to the source as reasonable

That in itself, can sometimes prove to be a conundrum.
I would bet that few here have seen a video master firsthand……..and even fewer (if any) have seen more than one or two high quality archival (as opposed to dupe) video masters.

When viewing some archival video masters, it is easy to notice differences in focus and grain changing from shot to shot or from scene to scene (due to the primary photography) in some movies. So much so, that it can be especially *annoying*. Believe me, these differences are/were not noted by even the most critical consumers during the public theatrical presentations. That’s how revealing HD has become today.

So, what is the compressionist to do?
Encode as precisely as possible to be as transparent as possible to the “source” (the video master) or tweak it a little so as to be more true to what is believed to have been the *look* of the typical theatrical presentation?

If one does the former, sometimes the result is better than the theatrical presentation.....see Deci’s post above (#2245). On the other hand, by doing the former, sometimes the more precise shot-to-shot or scene-to-scene variability can momentarily *surprise* the Blu-ray viewer, when they didn’t notice such variance during their theatrical viewing and they incorrectly conclude something is *wrong* or *off* with the Blu-ray transfer.

None of this stuff is as easy or simplified as some people make it out to be.

[Gremal]

I am often guilty of saying I want to get as close as possible to the source material, but I see that it's an ideal based on some misconceptions.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Keep in mind that this Austrian film was shot utilizing a 16mm sync sound camera with the super 16mm film format…….which was subsequently shown theatrically at 35mm.

The Blu-ray production attempts to duplicate the theatrical appearance as close as possible.

Thanks, that is useful information as I will be reviewing this soon.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

That in itself, can sometimes prove to be a conundrum.
I would bet that few here have seen a video master firsthand……..and even fewer (if any) have seen more than one or two high quality archival (as opposed to dupe) video masters.
When viewing some archival video masters, it is easy to notice differences in focus and grain changing from shot to shot or from scene to scene (due to the primary photography) in some movies. So much so, that it can be especially *annoying*.

Are you saying the HD master shows differences showprints don't show? Or the differences on the show prints are annoying too? The focus and grain differences are visible on Blu Rays and even normal release prints all the time. And on digital projections anyway.

So, what is the compressionist to do?

Nothing. He has to compress the given master as visually lossless as feasible with the encoder and bit budget he was given.

Encode as precisely as possible to be as transparent as possible to the “source” (the video master) or tweak it a little so as to be more true to what is believed to have been the *look* of the typical theatrical presentation?

The typical theatrical presentation is, thank God, NOT the reference standard. The reference standard is the correctly timed EK print screened for the film makers or the digital projection equivalent from the DI and the best prints made from the DI. The HD master then has the job to preserve that intended look as closely as possible within the technical limits of the HD system. This HD master should be approved by the film makers as well. Once it is, the compressionist has to compress it trying to minimize compression artifacts and keep them below the visibilty threshold at 24 fps when watched on revealing equipment seeing the full 1080p resolution. It's not his job to fiddle with the grain texture of the master, the detail or sharpness, the color or the contrast UNLESS otherwise unavoidable compression problems with the given bit budget force him to. But before that happens a lot of fiddling with parameters of the encoder can be tried out first. A quality aware studio will give the project a high enough bit budget so compression problems should be solvable at Blu Ray bit rates without the need for low pass or DNR filtering.

[mjbethancourt]

The thing I hate about this whole discussion is that it brings out a whole bunch of bozos with no information who pretend to be experts and who make up lies to support their case.

DNR has cleaned up the picture on a lot of blu-ray releases that needed it.

The whole '300' thing:
Look, you can watch that movie right now on HD cable (I did today), and there is no significant "grain", except on fast moving images, and some of the campfire scenes, or objects that are out of primary focus. I have personal experience with shooting HiDef digital video, and these are normal artifacts of the limitations of the technology, not intentional artistic license. Why should I buy a blu-ray with picture that is noticeably inferior to the cinematic and even the cable presentation? Stop making excuses for another bad WB blu-ray transfer by trying to call it an artistic decision. If that's their official excuse for the bad PQ of the blu-ray movie, then they are blowing smoke up our a$$. That movie looks pretty good with a clear picture, why does the blu-ray have to look like crap?

Grain in the cinema is due to limitations in equipment, either in the print, or in the projection equipment, it's not an intentional decision. I defy you to give me a direct quote from a filmmaker saying "I want inferior picture quality". Those that accept it are settling for one reason or another, such as Spielberg sticking with old equipment specifically because he wants to use the same editing equipment he's comfortable with, (I've seen liars on this website claim that he uses digital editing equipment... absolutely untrue. I've read over and over again from his own lips that analog editing is his reason for sticking with old-school analog film.)

Don't give me an example of a bad transfer, blame it on DNR, and try to use it as fuel to say that filmmakers want a grainy picture.

Arguing in favor of grain is arguing against HiDef, period. Dress it up in whatever pretentious jargon you want to, but that is what you are doing. If I wanted grain, I'd stick with DVD, it's grainy as hell.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

When viewing some archival video masters, it is easy to notice differences in focus and grain changing from shot to shot or from scene to scene (due to the primary photography) in some movies. So much so, that it can be especially *annoying*. Believe me, these differences are/were not noted by even the most critical consumers during the public theatrical presentations. That’s how revealing HD has become today.

Good example: Robocop.

(I could see the inconsistencies but had no idea why they're there until reliably informed by knowledgeable people on this forum. Viewers (myself included) tend automatically to fault the disc when they see something wrong, and often that's not the problem.)

EDIT: I mean the above to apply to the issue of variations in primary photography.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

If you take an older film that has an excessive amount of grain, it can be a visual distraction.

Kris,

Just so that we're not mixing apples and oranges, grain on an older film is not "excessive." It merely is what was used at the time. Keep in mind that it was not until 1983 that cinematographers had any choice of film speeds and emulsions.

On older single emulsion productions, the eye tends to get used to the grain, the changes of which only really become apparent in later years when emulsions might be cut up against one another.

RAH

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

When viewing some archival video masters, it is easy to notice differences in focus and grain changing from shot to shot or from scene to scene (due to the primary photography) in some movies. So much so, that it can be especially *annoying*. Believe me, these differences are/were not noted by even the most critical consumers during the public theatrical presentations. That’s how revealing HD has become today.

Penton,

An additional point can be added to your statement, which is that while some prints were struck from OCNs, a general release was usually through a dupe -- either fine grain master to dupe, or IP / IN.

Until the arrival of finer grain b&w fine grain stocks, and specifically 5243 (in 1986) for color, the intermediates and dupes would "calm" the difference between the different grain structures a bit as the image was softened, giving it a more overall pleasing "velvety" appearance.

Newer transfers, as you know, are usually harvested from either OCNs, when available, or a modern vintage fine grain master or IP, and it is this that in many ways exacerbates the more obvious nature of grain structure.

Going back to the 1920s and '30s, the duping process was designed into the look of many films.

RAH

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

The thing I hate about this whole discussion is that it brings out a whole bunch of bozos with no information who pretend to be experts and who make up lies to support their case.

DNR has cleaned up the picture on a lot of blu-ray releases that needed it.

The whole '300' thing:
Look, you can watch that movie right now on HD cable (I did today), and there is no significant "grain", except on fast moving images, and some of the campfire scenes, or objects that are out of primary focus. I have personal experience with shooting HiDef digital video, and these are normal artifacts of the limitations of the technology, not intentional artistic license. Why should I buy a blu-ray with picture that is noticeably inferior to the cinematic and even the cable presentation? Stop making excuses for another bad WB blu-ray transfer by trying to call it an artistic decision. If that's their official excuse for the bad PQ of the blu-ray movie, then they are blowing smoke up our a$$. That movie looks pretty good with a clear picture, why does the blu-ray have to look like crap?

Grain in the cinema is due to limitations in equipment, either in the print, or in the projection equipment, it's not an intentional decision. I defy you to give me a direct quote from a filmmaker saying "I want inferior picture quality". Those that accept it are settling for one reason or another, such as Spielberg sticking with old equipment specifically because he wants to use the same editing equipment he's comfortable with, (I've seen liars on this website claim that he uses digital editing equipment... absolutely untrue. I've read over and over again from his own lips that analog editing is his reason for sticking with old-school analog film.)

Don't give me an example of a bad transfer, blame it on DNR, and try to use it as fuel to say that filmmakers want a grainy picture.

Arguing in favor of grain is arguing against HiDef, period. Dress it up in whatever pretentious jargon you want to, but that is what you are doing. If I wanted grain, I'd stick with DVD, it's grainy as hell.

So you're saying that "The 300" was not intentionally grainy and is instead the result of a bad transfer- one that HD cable somehow cleaned up?

...good luck with that one.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

The thing I hate about this whole discussion is that it brings out a whole bunch of bozos with no information who pretend to be experts...............

I defy you to give me a direct quote from a filmmaker saying "I want inferior picture quality".

Well, they didn’t say "I want inferior picture quality" but, many have said that they intentionally desired a grainy or gritty appearance and a couple of months ago I took the time to provide exactly what you’ve asked.

Start reading my posts at the bottom of this page and then continue toward the top of page 16.
There are numerous other examples of direct quotes, if people take the time to search.
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ghlight=Penton

I do agree with your comment that some posters pretend to be experts esp. regarding the subject of grain, which can be a challenging topic. I remember a link that somebody sent me from a post on other forum where a poster was complementing on how *nice and grainy the Blu-ray movie was and how true to the theatrical presentation it was*…………..when, in essence a lot of the “grain” that the person was seeing was noise created by an old flying spot telecine at high frequencies.

[Penton-Man]

For the time being, I choose no longer to communicate with a person that has publically prclaimed in the past that it is “fun” or “great fun” (I can’t remember which) to look for deficiencies such as digital noise reduction artifacts, EE, etc. while viewing movies.

So, don’t waste your time in asking me anymore questions.
Such self-proclaimed motivating behavior should be confined to amateur digital video janitor threads/forums rather than film enthusiasts forums.

If any future *DNR bummers* come out from post houses such as One K, Ascent, Technicolor, Deluxe, etc. – perhaps this will help your condition…………

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Penton,

An additional point can be added to your statement, which is that while some prints were struck from OCNs, a general release was usually through a dupe -- either fine grain master to dupe, or IP / IN.

Until the arrival of finer grain b&w fine grain stocks, and specifically 5243 (in 1986) for color, the intermediates and dupes would "calm" the difference between the different grain structures a bit as the image was softened, giving it a more overall pleasing "velvety" appearance.

Newer transfers, as you know, are usually harvested from either OCNs, when available, or a modern vintage fine grain master or IP, and it is this that in many ways exacerbates the more obvious nature of grain structure.

Going back to the 1920s and '30s, the duping process was designed into the look of many films.

RAH

Robert,
I agree with everything you’ve said above.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by aramis109

So you're saying that "The 300" was not intentionally grainy and is instead the result of a bad transfer- one that HD cable somehow cleaned up?

...good luck with that one.

Aramis is correct.
He will need all the luck he can get................

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ion#post868632