Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man
I believe you’re referring to this post I made while ago where I quoted you as saying……..
“How bad is the DNR on Aviator? On the 35mm print it was dreadful.”
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...al#post1178944
Michel, the “point” is to demonstrate to readers that you have a visceral objection to digital noise reduction or what you think is digital noise reduction even when the digital processing is applied as part of the creative process by the colorist under supervision of the cinematographer (Richardson) with guidance from the Director (Scorsese)………….a film which later gets an Oscar nomination for Cinematography (which entails work done in the DI suite) and if you know anything about Oscar nominations then you know they’re voted on by their peers. |
Are you just guessing or do you know for a fact that Richardson
a) approved the DNR together with the obvious artifacts it added because the benefits were more relevant to him than the side effects?
b) there is one digital Aviator master and all prints and the HD come from it and the DNR artifacts are baked in for good?
I know at least two other films where the 35mm prints showed heavy DNR artifacts but the HD did not. Different masters used.
It does not really matter to me though if the look of the prints are fully DOP approved or not concerning my liking or disliking the result. As I said already, everyone is entitled to like or dislike what the film makers (or someone else) did with their film. One can not claim that the transfer is done wrong when it's accurately showing the film makers intentions. One does not have to like it either. A case of moving on to 'greener' pastures. Much more interesting is to hear from people why they did 'it', what the options were, if they would still do it that way, if they regret now what they did or would do it just the same again. And in this case, what did the people see that voted on the cinematography Oscar (a DVD?! A standard print? A special high quality print?), and what are they appreciating in what they see, what are they seeing and disliking but considering not decisive in the context? What are you rewarding? The finished product? In what form? Also the potential of the original photography?
It's my personal belief that a lot of what went down in the grain processing arena (and DI in general) (and to some extent still does) will be looked at far more critically in the future and will be considered as inappropriate/lacking as yesterday's coloring of black and white films or junking of nitrate masters after copying them to 'safety' film. It takes its time to sink in and generate a stable and sober view of benefit and cost, monetary and artistic.
Quote:
|
Readers should be cognizant of your extreme hypersensitivity to this type of digital processing. You’ve got the lunatics on the *science* forum seeing dnr on nearly every Blu-ray coming down the pipe now. Since you’re the one who opened the Pandora’s Box, it’s your responsibility to educate them now on a title by title, thread by thread basis that just because something is “soft” doesn’t necessarily mean “DNR’ed”…………especially when using screenshots as some de facto standard to judge picture quality of Blu-ray movies.
|
My list is open to all factual information to set things right and provide the correct answers. One of the main problems is that studios and people working on these disks really are mostly not interested in/allowed to providing correct and detailed technical information about the film masters used, the transfers, the processing applied. Even explicit misinformation has happened in the past (on purpose or not). That forces interested third parties to use circumstantial evidence (the most accurate of which is the data on the disks) to support their findings and justify their judgement.
Take for example Warner Brothers. Are their transfers routinely filtered to allow for lower bit rates or for other reasons? How are they filtered? People go on and on. WB won't tell. I look at their disks and sometimes I'm pretty sure it's not filtered, sometimes I simply can't tell, and sometimes I can tell it's filtered. It changes on a case by case basis.
I watched WB's "Interview with the Vampire" last night. A transfer that was heavily attacked (also for its meager DVD quality sound track, no comment) for soft images. It did not look like HD cam indeed. It was on the softer side. But it was mostly a film like transfer with some wonderful shots. I noticed some shots that looked filtered, 2 or so had scratch removal flickering, but overall it was quite enjoyable. If people call it crap I find it a very inappropriate claim. But how do you prove to someone it's basically supposed to look like this? Or not? WB does not tell you what they did. The film is not running in a local revival house... Detailed memories from 15 years ago? I'm not an autistic savant.
Stupid claims are annoying. They can be found on this site as well as on others.
They are best countered with real information, IF available.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
*I’m back post* on the last page.
Linear Mode
