The Digital Bits; "Grain is supposed to be there!"

[Canada]

Maybe they should have Warner Brothers read this I mean with there DNRing movie and all.

[Canada]

Without grain Black Hawk Down just would not be the same.

[WickyWoo]

In addition, Miami Vice on HD DVD is video noise city. This was shot with a digital camera, the Viper to be specific. Some digital cameras get very noisy in low lighting conditions. The Viper in particular exemplifies this trait.

That was the movie I was talking about. Apparently Mann piled extra artificial grain on top of the noise already present

[alphadec]

To say that a film is old so exepct "grain" that is very stupid. The problem here is not the age of the film, well if u watch a film made in 1940 of course u will get grain.

But I think the problem is that the studios don't use the best copies when they transfer to BD.

Just look at "2001" the film is made in 1966 and has zero grain and you can watch "300" well that is a film made on digital equipment!. WHo of these got most grain!!!! ???

Anyone seen this knows that 300 looks very bad when comes to grain.

So this about the film is too old does not hold up at all.

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by alphadec

To say that a film is old so exepct "grain" that is very stupid. The problem here is not the age of the film, well if u watch a film made in 1940 of course u will get grain.

But I think the problem is that the studios don't use the best copies when they transfer to BD.

A major problem with film is that grain is added each time you copy it, because you get the grain from the source negative, plus the grain from the negative it's being copied to. Modern movies are mastered directly from the negatives, so this problem doesn't arise. For older movies, it might be possible to get the original camera negatives and completely re-edit the whole thing, but in some cases they will use later generations, and these will have more grain. They will take a number of factors into account when deciding what to use as the basis for the restoration. There is also the fact that, as has already been mentioned, modern film stock achieves the same ISO rating with finer grain compared to older film stock.

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I'm surprised more of you don't see film grain in theaters.

The majority of the movies I have seen at cinemas have had terribly soft, misfocused image quality. It's a major reason why I don't bother with them any more. This is why the general public doesn't see film grain.

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

What you experience theatrically in a good theater is much better amps, DACs and speakers than many can afford at home.

You have had the good fortune of visiting better cinemas than I have. At every cinema I have been to, the sound has been truly dreadful, far worse than my home setup.

[rovex33]

I think this problem is coming about because of the name HIGH DEFINITION TV. HDTVs are not high def, they are high resolution. BIG difference. Anyone with a cheap digital camera knows that high resolution doesnt always mean high definition.
Blu-ray discs provide an image that is high resolution, therefore have less aliasing, but the image need not be high definition. If the original was grainy it simply allows you to see the grain that the low resolution and aliased image of DVD didnt show up.
Should the image be softened to hide it? No, not in my view. I just watched Star Trek 4 in high 'def'. Grainy as hell, but it still looked better than an upscaled DVD.

Last weekend i saw Ironman. I for one defiantly saw the grain, it looked like it was a reproduction using sand! The fact is some cinemas are just bad.

To me 300 had grain on the DVD, i assumed it was added on purpose.

[WickyWoo]

Just look at "2001" the film is made in 1966 and has zero grain and you can watch "300" well that is a film made on digital equipment!. WHo of these got most grain!!!! ???

2001 was A- Shot Super Panavision 70mm and therefore has far more resolution than Blu-ray is capable of rendering with a finer grain structure and B-has been smoothied with DVNR like all Warner titles

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

2001 was A- Shot Super Panavision 70mm and therefore has far more resolution than Blu-ray is capable of rendering with a finer grain structure and B-has been smoothied with DVNR like all Warner titles

Wicky, see my thread.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by alphadec

To say that a film is old so exepct "grain" that is very stupid. The problem here is not the age of the film, well if u watch a film made in 1940 of course u will get grain.

But I think the problem is that the studios don't use the best copies when they transfer to BD.

Just look at "2001" the film is made in 1966 and has zero grain and you can watch "300" well that is a film made on digital equipment!. WHo of these got most grain!!!! ???

Anyone seen this knows that 300 looks very bad when comes to grain.

So this about the film is too old does not hold up at all.

2001's projected image is 22 mm x 48.4 mm which is more than 4 times current 35mm's. It was filmed so ït was a "you are there" experience.

Anyway this is 60 year old emulsion grain on BD, at 1080p, actual size section:

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by dadkins

If that image looks off to you, then it is your screen that is off.

I never got too far into mucking with my screen, but I have ran through Adobe Gamma once or twice.

...snip...

Can you see the black here?
This is *NOT* from my laptop BTW.

Your image is wrong, I can see the black on my very, very basic Nokia 95 which only shows 262k real colours and dithers the rest. Deci has a much better example. The biggest problem is that a laptop screen is not adequate for watching BD, if you want to get the full experience, I would suggest investing in a 27" NEC pro LCD monitor, or a CRT. This will bring out fine detail much better than a laptop monitor.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I'm AMAZED you haven't been shot by somebody on this forum yet!

A Passage To India

~Alan

Heh, I just looked into it. That's why I usually leave myself a little wiggle room in posts so, in instances like these I can say, "Well I said I wasn't sure." Always leave yourself an out

[dadkins]

Like I said, that is not from my laptop...

Here:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...3Doff%26sa%3DN

More precisely:
http://examples.oreilly.com/imovie06tmm/ColorBars.gif


Thanks though!

EDIT: Because some of you do not know, I have two(2) settings for color in the nVidia Control Panel.
One is for Desktop Color Settings, one is for Video Color Settings.

The Video Color Settings are more like Deci's image.
Hardware Acceleration will not allow me to take a screen shot of Video Color Settings... and a camera snap is pointless. You all will just have to take my word for it.

As to the laptop monitor comment, this is far from a $399 Dell laptop.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

2001's projected image is 22 mm x 48.4 mm which is more than 4 times current 35mm's. It was filmed so ït was a "you are there" experience.

Anyway this is 60 year old emulsion grain on BD, at 1080p, actual size section:

Look at those beautiful arcs and colours. No stair stepping or obvious contouring. A beautiful capture.

What is the colour depth in that?

Gary

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by dadkins

Like I said, that is not from my laptop...

Here:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...3Doff%26sa%3DN

More precisely:
http://examples.oreilly.com/imovie06tmm/ColorBars.gif


Thanks though!

As I said, those color bars' levels are off (I don't have my digital color meter with me at the moment but I can see they're similar). The one I posted is a BD one with correct 8-bit levels.

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Look at those beautiful arcs and colours. No stair stepping or obvious contouring. A beautiful capture.

What is the colour depth in that?

Gary

Well, BD's 7.78-bit video levels (16-235) Cell processor upconverted to 8-bit levels (0-255) plus jpeg compression added on top.

The full 1.37 1080 image is a beauty.

[dadkins]

RIGHT! ... and as I have stated several times now... that image is not from this laptop!

No one here besides me can see what this screen is displaying so any comments y'all make about whether or not it is set correctly is silly!
Now, if anyone of you wish to come visit, I will gladly set you down with it and let you see for yourself.
You can run anything you wish on it.
Then, and only then, can you say whether or not the screen is set correctly or not. Right?

[Deciazulado]

dadkins, the point is that if that you keep postings pictures and links to bars with incorrect levels. Bars with incorrect levels are useless to calibrate a screen. We hope that you're not basing your screen settings on those. Now, hopefully this will be the last post about those bars, ne?

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by dadkins

Like I said, that is not from my laptop...

Here:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...3Doff%26sa%3DN

More precisely:
http://examples.oreilly.com/imovie06tmm/ColorBars.gif


Thanks though!

EDIT: Because some of you do not know, I have two(2) settings for color in the nVidia Control Panel.
One is for Desktop Color Settings, one is for Video Color Settings.

The Video Color Settings are more like Deci's image.
Hardware Acceleration will not allow me to take a screen shot of Video Color Settings... and a camera snap is pointless. You all will just have to take my word for it.

As to the laptop monitor comment, this is far from a $399 Dell laptop.

That's a Sony laptop right?

They use Sharp LCD screens for their laptops and from what I remember they don't render 8bits per channel, only 6 and dither the rest.

I will re-iterate, if you are using a laptop, get an NEC pro-grade monitor and hook it up, it will make the world of difference.

Something like this:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/displa...LCD2690WUXi/p1

[BoneWSO]

Someone should add a poll to this thread. Who approves of grain, who wants it DNRed, who will never watch a movie with grain in it, etc. I still can't believe people complain about grain/black bars. If you enjoy a movie enough to buy it then you should want it in the exact same form that the director intended and was originally shot. End of story, now go get an education and an appreciation for art.

[BoneWSO]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Here's a question . . . for those complaining about grain/noise . . . what's your sharpness set at?

BStecke, you beat me to it. I was thinking the same thing. If someone really hates grain and wants it removed do it yourself. Turn the sharpness on your tv all the way down. Grain will be gone. Of course, the picture won't look as crisp, but then you'll be seeing what happens when someone decides to apply DNR. The results are a loss of clarity that you get with HD. So yeah, all of you people who dislike grain can just go back to buying DVD. Leave HD to the people who appreciate it.

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

That's a Sony laptop right?

They use Sharp LCD screens for their laptops and from what I remember they don't render 8bits per channel, only 6 and dither the rest.

I will re-iterate, if you are using a laptop, get an NEC pro-grade monitor and hook it up, it will make the world of difference.

Actually, it is a Sony screen...

Monitor Name Sony Notebook LCD (1920x1200)
Monitor ID MS_0026
Manufacturer Sony Corporation

Input Analog Input Voltage - 0.700V/0.300V
Current Resolution 1920 x 1200 @ 60Hz - Aspect Ratio 16:10

EDID Version 1 revision 3
DPMS Mode Support Active Off, Suspend, Standby
.....................

I sure like how people try and tell me what I have, what I am seeing, and anything else without ever seeing what I am looking at.

Thanks anyways!