Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041
Just for fun, I massaged the original image in photoshop a bit:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/26398
Not saying there's anything particulary problematic either way in this case, and I don't know if any intentional sharpening was applied aside from whatever overshoot their downscaling algorithm has, but if a studio like Sony tries to sell enhancement as improvement, that makes me a bit uncomfortable  |
Well that's the thing with a 2K BD mastered from a high resolution source and another 2K BD mastering from a high resolution source, In the end you have 1080 x 1920 pixels with X amount of amplitude and Y amount of noise. So you have a fixed maximum frequency (bandwidth) limit and signal to noise ratio. What is done between those limits is what determines definition as in Definition = f x S/N.
In the new mastering the amplitude of the finer frequencies is higher than the previous transfer. (Amplitude is "sharpness"). Your sharpening boosted the amplitude of the previous disc but if you notice on the 'boosted" pic some of the lower frequencies (the coarser details or edges) are in higher amplitude than in the new disc, but on the new disc some of the higher frequencies (the finer details or edges) are in higher amplitude still than in the older disc "boosted" pic.
In human perception this means that at lower magnifications (smaller viewing angles/picture/TV size when watching) since the finer details are too small this won't be of consequence and the boosted pic may even look sharper (Thats why looooots of discs (specially DVDs, or masters done for TV and DVDs and for people who watch BDs at 4PH (the majority)) have "edge enhancement") than the higher quality (higher amplitude on finer detail) transfer.
Now on the other hand, at higher magnifications (larger viewing angles/picture/TV size when watching) (or like at the theater) the transfer with the boosted lower frequency will look "edge enhanced" or "video like" while the one with the lower frequencies at normal amplitudes, but with the finer details with higher amplitude, will then look sharper, more defined and film-like or as people call it, with "higher definition". The lack of higher frequencies, be that they are not there, or in lower amplitude to begin with, is what limits an image looking "high definition" when blown-up large.
You could say that in this case the high frequencies are there on both discs (they probably are reaching or have reached the frequency limit of the BD format) and it's just a matter of how and what frequencies are boosted relative to one another and you might be right. Is just like mastering an audio recording with an multi-band equalizer and using different frequency response curves to achieve better results. If you have the tools you could probably play with the images more to makes them almost equal. In Photoshop you would use several combinations and applications of different radius (frequency) and amount (amplitude) settings to achieve flat response and optimum sharpness. In your home theater unless you have pro tools, you have the blunt "Sharpness" control of your TV which will use a preset curve of boosting the sharpness, and like in the boosted pic, it may boost some frequencies more than they need when trying to boost the higher, detailed frequencies on the disc to a equal or satisfactory level (if it has them). The thing being that this boosting or frequency massaging also boosts noise or grain (and Mpeg compression artifacts which is also a kind of noise embedded in the signal). So if you start with a better transfer that already has the proper amplitude at the correct frequencies, it has a better chance at looking optimal that another that didn't do it from the start.
In this case disc 1 is pretty close and being mostly from a relatively new noise-free Master source it's not far from optimum. But it still has the higher frequencies softer than the new disc, even in the "boosted" pic. So the new disc will still look more natural and defined specially on a big screen. In fact the bigger the better, the more you'll notice:
Taking into account that most people watch their HDTVs at a distance of approximately(~) 4 Picture Heights, they might not notice this at first. Even people with CIH projectors tend to watch at ~4PH the last time I checked members stating their screen size and viewing distance (those that watched everything on 1.78 projector screens on the other hand seem to watch those screens closer to ~3PH away). But when we go to the movies, go to a well designed theater, and sit in the middle of the theater, we watch the images at ~2PH away which is 4 times the area! and enjoy the experience and feeling of that which is what we try to recreate at home with out home theaters and what "home theater' and BD is all about. (Otherwise we could still use DVDs or even LDs, etc.) (Those who sit on the very front rows ~1.5PH; those on the back wall ~4PH, like watching a TV). For the last 7 years I've seen plenty of discs that look soft (some probably trying to avoid looking "grainy", others because the transfer chain/mastering decisions made them that way) and I have to sharpen them (with the simultaneous increase in noise/compression artifacts) to make them look like a 35mm presentation, which BD in it's best light can ape and in some areas surpass.
So like any "remastering" that is done, the goal should be make it look better, closer to, or in some cases even superior to the original showing. If the original consumer edition was pretty good to begin with, the improvement might be just be incremental. That's for the fan to decide.
To me I've said the difference most of these look like the projectionist came and focused the projector when it was a little off. I prefer to watch my movies focused as best possible. (One reason I don't go to theaters much nowadays, they don't)
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
Linear Mode
