The DNR Debate - What Side Are You On?

[QwikSand]

Ok thanks, I will have to rent one of those to see. I personally don't like the grain and don't care why it's supposed to be there and it's also what's keeping my friends from getting into Blu.

Btw, what happened to your henchmen and fanboys?

[owa]

In general, I'm against it.

Question about the Pan's comparison though. Is it exactly the same frame? While the face and the texture of the uniform are much more detailed in the frame on the left, the buttons and pins in the frame on the right, look a little better to me (maybe a little more defined?). Look at the tail of the bird on the left in each frame. In the frame on the right, I can clearly see 5 lines but in the frame on the left, the lines are somewhat blurred, especially the inner most lines.

[WickyWoo]

Question about the Pan's comparison though. Is it exactly the same frame? While the face and the texture of the uniform are much more detailed in the frame on the left, the buttons and pins in the frame on the right, look a little better to me (maybe a little more defined?). Look at the tail of the bird on the left in each frame. In the frame on the right, I can clearly see 5 lines but in the frame on the left, the lines are somewhat blurred, especially the inner most lines.

I didn't take them, it's a guy over on AVS. I just cut out the part that I was focusing on and put them side by side. More likely on the buttons you're seeing the smearing of highlights

Whether or not they're the same frame, if you look at the movie (00:34:06 I believe is the timecode) he's standing essentially still in the shot, making it a good comparison

[sean10mm]

If you over-use it you destroy picture detail, which is the WHOLE POINT of high definition. Getting rid of grain isn't much of an accomplishment if you blur all the detail away in the process.

[owa]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

I didn't take them, it's a guy over on AVS. I just cut out the part that I was focusing on and put them side by side. More likely on the buttons you're seeing the smearing of highlights

Whether or not they're the same frame, if you look at the movie (00:34:06 I believe is the timecode) he's standing essentially still in the shot, making it a good comparison

Okay, thanks for the info.

[Octavio]

Doesn't every HD-TV set comes with a Noise Reduction feature?

I mean you can do it manually. my Sony TV has that feature: "noise reduction" and "mpeg noise reduction".

It goes from NO noise reduction to HIGH noise reduction.

You can choose the best configuration for you. At the end what really matters is how you like to see your pictures.

Movies should be released as intended by director, then if some dude hates black bars when watching a movie which OAR is widescreen 2.4:1, just "Zoom in". But don't ask the studios to release a cropped version of the film just in order to satisfy you.

Same about film grain: If some person doesn't like it (being honest sometimes "grain" could be very distracting), then select the "Noise Reduction" Feature on your TV until it looks good enough to you.

Just my 2 cents.

[QwikSand]

I know what you're saying but my tv doesn't have much in the way of features so I don't have that and anything that takes away from the crispness of the Blu defeats the purpose of the adjustment. I know it's a long shot but I just hope someday the grain goes away. It's distracting and for my personal tastes it detracts from the HD purpose. Maybe some people like the grain but I don't.

[BStecke]

By removing grain, you remove detail. So . . . you're actually losing whatever crispness you think you're gaining.

[QwikSand]

Well then I guess I just don't understand the grain thing much then even though I've read plenty of discussions on it here. I don't see why it can't be made without it. I thought it was added in to make the movie look like the theater? Well, a BD is sharper than the theater so for my personal preference it makes it lesser quality. I'm sure this has been addressed many times here and I'm not looking to make an arguement. I just don't like grain and it comes up everytime someone comes over to watch a movie. "Why is the background of the screen moving?" They think I'm nuts for spending so much money on this stuff. I enjoy what I have, I just wish the grain was gone. I admit I didn't do research about grain, I just jumped into Blu knowing it was the best and then saw it in my first movie. My impression was it was going to be like watching a movie like on HDTV but better, but HDTV has no grain so for me it's a tradeoff I guess. Eh, whatever, it's pointless. Grain is here to stay. I'll keep getting Blus because they still look beter than dvd, I'm just bugged by the grain.

[Octavio]

Originally Posted by QwikSand

I know what you're saying but my tv doesn't have much in the way of features so I don't have that and anything that takes away from the crispness of the Blu defeats the purpose of the adjustment. I know it's a long shot but I just hope someday the grain goes away. It's distracting and for my personal tastes it detracts from the HD purpose. Maybe some people like the grain but I don't.

Well I thought that all HD-TV sets included the NR feature. I know for sure that all Sony HDTV's does it. I know as well that many other companies includes that feature in their TV sets.

Seems yours doesn't have it. But just in case (and plz don't get offended) check your TV manual in detail.

[QwikSand]

Originally Posted by Octavio

Well I thought that most HD-TV sets included that feature. I know for sure that all the Sony TV's does have it. I know as well that many other companies includes that feature in their TV sets.

Seems yours doesn't have it. But just in case (and plz don't get offended) check your TV manual in detail.

I'm not offended at all. It's just not a great HDTV. I have Scan Velocity Modulation, that's it. No noise reduction.

[Seretur]

I'm all for preserving the film's integrity, but some of the alleged cases of DNR being applied are dodgy. Pan's Labyrinth looks better on Blu-ray than it ever did in theaters -- and I saw it in Cannes at its premiere -- so I'm not so sure the grain was supposed to be there.

If the movie originates from the digital intermediate, then that's actually the master to use for BD production, not the 35mm prints that introduce a level of graininess into the image to no actual gain in detail. The Golden Compass is another film accused of excessive DNR, but I bet the case is the same. Such a heavy effects film surely can look better than it did in theaters -- with abhorent levels of grain and its contrast all shot to hell.

I got a shipping notice from Amazon.com just as I was typing this, so I'll gladly check it out as soon as it comes to my neck of (pine) woods...

[QwikSand]

Originally Posted by Seretur

I'm all for preserving the film's integrity, but some of the alleged cases of DNR being applied are dodgy. Pan's Labyrinth looks better on Blu-ray than it ever did in theaters -- and I saw it in Cannes at its premiere -- so I'm not so sure the grain was supposed to be there.

If the movie originates from the digital intermediate, then that's actually the master to use for BD production, not the 35mm prints that introduce a level of graininess into the image to no actual gain in detail. The Golden Compass is another film accused of excessive DNR, but I bet the case is the same. Such a heavy effects film surely can look better than it did in theaters -- with abhorent levels of grain and its contrast all shot to hell.

I don't wanna turn this into a thread about grain for myself and hijack the OP's thread about DNR as I am reading some other threads more about grain right now, but since you know more about this, would you elaborate a little more on what DNR is supposed to be used for and the same with grain in certain movies and not others as far as detail goes? You can see by my post above I'm not a huge fan

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Seretur

I'm all for preserving the film's integrity, but some of the alleged cases of DNR being applied are dodgy. Pan's Labyrinth looks better on Blu-ray than it ever did in theaters -- and I saw it in Cannes at its premiere -- so I'm not so sure the grain was supposed to be there.

If the movie originates from the digital intermediate, then that's actually the master to use for BD production, not the 35mm prints that introduce a level of graininess into the image to no actual gain in detail. The Golden Compass is another film accused of excessive DNR, but I bet the case is the same. Such a heavy effects film surely can look better than it did in theaters -- with abhorent levels of grain and its contrast all shot to hell.

I got a shipping notice from Amazon.com just as I was typing this, so I'll gladly check it out as soon as it comes to my neck of (pine) woods...

I think it all comes down to the director's intentions. Take a look at 30 Days of Night. They added the grain in post. If they add the grain, only to have New Line or WB take it out and ruin the quality of the movie, then DNR has no place in HD.

The problem with the DNR isn't JUST grain though as you can see from the screen shots provided from the Pan's Labyrinth Blu-Rays. You lose detail. Taking a film and puting it on 35mm film and then transfering it back onto Blu-Ray probably isn't going to add detail. So I am assuming this is the fault of the DNR.

[WickyWoo]

Well then I guess I just don't understand the grain thing much then even though I've read plenty of discussions on it here. I don't see why it can't be made without it. I thought it was added in to make the movie look like the theater? Well, a BD is sharper than the theater so for my personal preference it makes it lesser quality

It's present on any movie shot on film (99.9% of movies ever made)

It's added in to some digitally shot movies because it breaks things up, and "scatters" enough that you can get away with some dodgier FX for instance (300)

When you pull out grain, you're squashing fine detail (which individual grains are), the more you purge, the more overall quality you lose

[QwikSand]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

It's present on any movie shot on film (99.9% of movies ever made)

It's added in to some digitally shot movies because it breaks things up, and "scatters" enough that you can get away with some dodgier FX for instance (300)

When you pull out grain, you're squashing fine detail (which individual grains are), the more you purge, the more overall quality you lose

Ok so then really it comes down to how prevalent the grain is rather than if it's there or not? I just popped in I Am Legend and I see literally no grain whatsoever. Yeah 300 was grainy but I can see that for being a ton of CG.

So by removing grain that is embedded from the master, that would degrade the overall quality? Ok that I think I get if that's what you mean and agree with. However it's then the extra adding of grain I don't like but again, it's just my personal preference. maybe some people like the added grain.

[WickyWoo]

So by removing grain that is embedded from the master, that would degrade the overall quality? Ok that I think I get if that's what you mean and agree with. However it's then the extra adding of grain I don't like but again, it's just my personal preference. maybe some people like the added grain.

Correct. Look at the pictures I uploaded from Pan's Labyrinth. Look at his face, the uniform etc. There is very little ADDING of grain that goes on except for some filmmakers (Michael Mann for example, there's very few of them) who like everything all abuzz with it, and to even out shots that are too clean. Essentially they try to find a happy medium to make sure everything is consistant.

[QwikSand]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Correct. Look at the pictures I uploaded from Pan's Labyrinth. Look at his face, the uniform etc. There is very little ADDING of grain that goes on except for some filmmakers (Michael Mann for example, there's very few of them) who like everything all abuzz with it, and to even out shots that are too clean. Essentially they try to find a happy medium to make sure everything is consistant.

I saw the pics and agree that the pic on the right with the DNR is much more 'washed out'. The uniform loses textures and his face looks blotchier like you said. So to get back to the OP's poll, I vote no DNR if it does that.

If there is truly very little adding of grain, then I feel much better about my collection. I haven't watched any reference movies yet that people mention on here so maybe once I watch those I'll feel better. Thanks WW for explaining.

[ClaytonMG]

So I have a question... Don't director's have to actually approve of the transfer? Do they actually see what it looks like after they do their "wonderful" DNR?

[HumanMedia]

Originally Posted by JJxiv1215

Some like to say Troy and Pan's Labyrinth.

But then when compared to a non-DNRed Pans Labyrinth (UK release) the non-DNRed is notably better.
The title of this thread presupposes that there is 'two sides' to this destruction of the image.
If film grain and image detail are an issue to anyone they should just upscale DVDs and smear these out.
DNR is the antithesis of hidef media.