Zulu

[General Vyper]

Originally Posted by bmwone

Acting? Pertaining to who's?

Well I remember Caine being particularly bad in that movie, and some of the other guys were pretty ropey too.

[bmwone]

Originally Posted by General Vyper

Well I remember Caine being particularly bad in that movie, and some of the other guys were pretty ropey too.

Actually, Zulu was M. Caine's first movie role. Jack Hawkins a "ropey" actor? Hawkins is rather a famous British actor.

It was a 1964 movie remember.

[richieb1971]

There were scenes in that movie that looked a tad silly. I'm not going to knock it though because its a well made film of that era.

I don't know if I have the wrong equipment, but movies that have no DNR applied don't seem any better PQ to me overall. I thought Gladiator was acceptable by a long stretch. Compared to say something like Interview with a vampire or Perfect Storm.

Everyone championed Braveheart, but to my eye's it didn't look that much better than Gladiator, although I would say it was a tad better.

[bmwone]

I watched it in detail and I did see a couple things. Dead British soldiers were moving. Also clearly dead Zulu warriors were breathing. Those particular rifles didn't have the range they showed. Yes it was a well made movie for that era. With the flaws.

I for one like a movie to be sharp and clean. Just my opinion

[blu_sharpy]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

I don't know if I have the wrong equipment, but movies that have no DNR applied don't seem any better PQ to me overall. I thought Gladiator was acceptable by a long stretch. Compared to say something like Interview with a vampire or Perfect Storm.

Companies think that applying DNR to films should made them look better. As I stated before this is most definately not the case as many titles with DNR lose the fine detail that they should have and go from looking film-like to some nasty smoothed over waxwork of a film

[bmwone]

Originally Posted by blu_sharpy

Companies think that applying DNR to films should made them look better. As I stated before this is most definately not the case as many titles with DNR lose the fine detail that they should have and go from looking film-like to some nasty smoothed over waxwork of a film

Don't you think "companies" would know they are loosing detail when applying DNR. Or is it all in the eyes of the beholder?

[blu_sharpy]

Originally Posted by bmwone

Don't you think "companies" would know they are loosing detail when applying DNR. Or is it all in the eyes of the beholder?

To be honest with you I dont understand why companies apply DNR. I think it is partly down to the fact that people assume that HD should look smooth and 3D like with no grain yet in reality a film made 20 years ago will never look like that, it can only look as good as the source material will let it. So by applying heavy amounts of DNR you please the consumers that are under the assumption that grain is a bad thing but you end up annoying the consumers that understand that grain is a by product of film. At the end of the day, if a product that has been DNR'd to death has high sales figures then the few people who complain get left in the dark as the companies are making their money even if they are affectively putting out a botched up product.

[bmwone]

Originally Posted by blu_sharpy

To be honest with you I dont understand why companies apply DNR. I think it is partly down to the fact that people assume that HD should look smooth and 3D like with no grain yet in reality a film made 20 years ago will never look like that, it can only look as good as the source material will let it. So by applying heavy amounts of DNR you please the consumers that are under the assumption that grain is a bad thing but you end up annoying the consumers that understand that grain is a by product of film. At the end of the day, if a product that has been DNR'd to death has high sales figures then the few people who complain get left in the dark as the companies are making their money even if they are affectively putting out a botched up product.

Gotcha, thanks for the good explanation.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by blu_sharpy

To be honest with you I dont understand why companies apply DNR. I think it is partly down to the fact that people assume that HD should look smooth and 3D like with no grain yet in reality a film made 20 years ago will never look like that, it can only look as good as the source material will let it. So by applying heavy amounts of DNR you please the consumers that are under the assumption that grain is a bad thing but you end up annoying the consumers that understand that grain is a by product of film. At the end of the day, if a product that has been DNR'd to death has high sales figures then the few people who complain get left in the dark as the companies are making their money even if they are affectively putting out a botched up product.

The studios remove grain because the vast majority of consumers are only familiar with the look of film on dvd, which was such a limited format that it did not really show the inherent grain of film.

[General Vyper]

Originally Posted by bmwone

Actually, Zulu was M. Caine's first movie role. Jack Hawkins a "ropey" actor? Hawkins is rather a famous British actor.

It was a 1964 movie remember.

That's something I don't get as an argument, "It's old so you have to forgive the dodgy acting" - why exactly? Some dramatic performances from that era are awesome, yet other stuff looks like 2 wooden dolls reading lines off a board. Badly. Bad acting is bad acting no matter what year it happened.

[bmwone]

Originally Posted by General Vyper

That's something I don't get as an argument, "It's old so you have to forgive the dodgy acting" - why exactly? Some dramatic performances from that era are awesome, yet other stuff looks like 2 wooden dolls reading lines off a board. Badly. Bad acting is bad acting no matter what year it happened.

Was'nt really trying to make an argument.
Guess I should not have added that line "It was a 1964 movie remember."
Your right bad acting is bad acting.

[General Vyper]

Originally Posted by bmwone

Was'nt really trying to make an argument.
Guess I should not have added that line "It was a 1964 movie remember."
Your right bad acting is bad acting.

No worries I didn't mean 'argument' in any aggressive sense, sorry if it came across that way.