The DNR Debate - What Side Are You On?

[pro-bassoonist]

Note:

I-Candy,

Your language is inappropriate. Whether you agree or disagree with what is said is irrelevant; what is, is that you follow the rules and regulations this forum demands.

To the rest of the posters in this thread, present and future, think very carefully how you address our insiders. As clarified by Iceman yesterday in Penton Man's thread, anyone who attacks an insider will be disciplined.

Thank you!

Pro-B

[I-Candy]

Originally Posted by aramis109

I think Penton makes a pretty good point and knows a lot about the subject (obviously). I-Candy DID go from making a thread asking about the subject to making absolute statements about DNR. Kind of a big jump.

+1

[Beta Man]

Attacking or insulting an insider will result in a ban...... I don't make the rules, but I will enforce them if necessary.....

GET BACK ON TOPIC.

If you disagree with Penton (like I do for instance with something he said in particular) Tell him why.... insults and attacks shouldn't be used for new members, regular members, moderators, or insiders.......

Few will respect your position if you can't vocalize it without childish insults.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

In regards to “dnr” applied by some (not all) studios/post facilities in the production of the Blu-ray product, it is an online fallacy to believe that it is used to cater to some sort of demographic. I would say that in all but the most anomalous cases, the fact of the matter is, it is easier to compress (by easier, I mean less time and effort which equates to less cost) to compress relatively grainless imagery compared to grainy images.

Don’t believe me?
Refer to “Better Blu-ray”………….
http://www.lowrydigital.com/bluray.html

This is the point I would disagree with..... "Easier" would be leaving it "as-is" transfered from 35mm or whatever, to Blu-ray. Is it easier than removing the dirt/scratches etc... without DNR, probably.... but the demographic they're catering to is "Picture without noticeable flaws" and although there are better ways to do this.... they use DNR, so the end justifies their means in this case (to them at least)

They are catering to a demographic..... it's the way they're doing it is all wrong though...... Blu-ray consumers in general are asking for "more" I'd rather have a few dirt specs here and there, than an entire feature length film smothered in DNR and EE


O.K. I guess I agree and disagree with you.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

To put it in the most simplistic terms, if you cut down on the random noise (i.e. grain) to begin with, it is easier (ergo, cheaper) for the compression facility to hit the target bitrates dictated by the content provider when taking into consideration all the other *stuff* that is planned to go on the disc.

Let me ask you this. what studios do you feel uses to much dnr?
And: Is there anyway those studios would be willing to use less dnr?

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

Let me ask you this. what studios do you feel uses to much dnr?
And: Is there anyway those studios would be willing to use less dnr?

I think a better question would be which one he doesn't think uses it, and I know the answer there: Sony. You can probably extrapolate the rest.

Paramount and Warner have been found guilty of it a few times in the past that I can think of.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by aramis109

I think a better question would be which one he doesn't think uses it, and I know the answer there: Sony. You can probably extrapolate the rest.

Paramount and Warner have been found guilty of it a few times in the past that I can think of.

Disney too. Cough...Gangs of New York...cough.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

Disney too. Cough...Gangs of New York...cough.

I think the fault there was with the master though.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by ack_bak

I think the fault there was with the master though.

They (Disney owns Miramax) produced the film in the first place. This was not Gladiator where Paramount's Blu-ray transfer came from a Universal master.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

They (Disney owns Miramax) produced the film in the first place. This was not Gladiator where Paramount's Blu-ray transfer came from a Universal master.

Agreed that the movie should have been remastered. Not defending that, but the master they used on the Blu-Ray is the same flawed master they used for the DVD release. So I am not sure how much fault we can place on the people encoding the Blu-Ray vs the decision not to remaster the film.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by ack_bak

Agreed that the movie should have been remastered. Not defending that, but the master they used on the Blu-Ray is the same flawed master they used for the DVD release. So I am not sure how much fault we can place on the people encoding the Blu-Ray vs the decision not to remaster the film.

I'm not blaming anyone in particular. I'm blaming the studio as a whole. Kinda the same idea as "we win as a team, we lose as a team" in sports. The team screwed the pooch on GONY for sure.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

I'm not blaming anyone in particular. I'm blaming the studio as a whole. Kinda the same idea as "we win as a team, we lose as a team" in sports. The team screwed the pooch on GONY for sure.

They did, and I have not bought it on Blu-Ray and most likely will not until they remaster it. But as a whole, Disney has been solid on Blu-Ray.

Paramount catalog titles are really a gamble....

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by ack_bak

They did, and I have not bought it on Blu-Ray and most likely will not until they remaster it. But as a whole, Disney has been solid on Blu-Ray.

Paramount catalog titles are really a gamble....

Disney has been great for the most part, although a bit overpriced most of the time. Have you refused to buy GONY because of reviews or did you rent it and see the travesty for yourself? I made the mistake of forking over $25 at Wal-Mart for it the week it came out before reading any reviews on it. Huge mistake.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

Disney has been great for the most part, although a bit overpriced most of the time. Have you refused to buy GONY because of reviews or did you rent it and see the travesty for yourself? I made the mistake of forking over $25 at Wal-Mart for it the week it came out before reading any reviews on it. Huge mistake.

I read the reviews and then rented it. Was glad I did. I thought it was much worse than Patton or any of the Trek movies to date.

[CMM]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

As has been stated numerous times, the most likely reason TODAY for DNR to be used is for ease of compression. It's not because they (the studio?) decided it shouldn't have grain all of a sudden, it's that by smoothing out some (or all) of the grain, they can make the movie fit more easily onto the disc.

Yet they still use it. Which implies they don't care much for grain.

[Douglas R]

There is a danger that due to what has been said on internet forums, purchasers are being dissatisfied with any Blu-ray disc unless they can see grain. Grain is not necessarily desirable. I've seen many 70mm films projected and the grain is so fine that most of the time you can't see it at all. And ponder this; why do cinemas traditionally charge more to sit further back from the screen - for the simple reason that the picrure looks sharper further back because you cannot see the grain. The picture looks like a snowstorm if you sit very close to the screen and that effect is in no way intended.

[stargazeruk]

Personally for FILM I don't mind grain in my films unless it has too much then I would prefer DNR to "REDUCE" the amount of grain (Not remove all of the grain).

For digitally shot films (not super35) I am against them adding artifical grain.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

There is a danger that due to what has been said on internet forums, purchasers are being dissatisfied with any Blu-ray disc unless they can see grain. Grain is not necessarily desirable. I've seen many 70mm films projected and the grain is so fine that most of the time you can't see it at all. And ponder this; why do cinemas traditionally charge more to sit further back from the screen - for the simple reason that the picrure looks sharper further back because you cannot see the grain. The picture looks like a snowstorm if you sit very close to the screen and that effect is in no way intended.

Charge more to sit further from the screen? What? Where I come from (Texas), it is first come, first serve. Everyone pays the same price for their ticket and whoever gets there the earliest gets the best seat.

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

Charge more to sit further from the screen? What? Where I come from (Texas), it is first come, first serve. Everyone pays the same price for their ticket and whoever gets there the earliest gets the best seat.

I'm really referring to the big old movie palaces, not the much smaller multiplexes of today.

[Smokin Ace]

I'm ok with DNR on older movies where grain may not really be very intentional, just a byproduct of the film not aging well. On newer releases however I think it just messes with what the director wants to present to the audience.