The Shining (1980)

[myway]

Originally Posted by OgamiittoMcJ

Kubrick would disagree as he made the cuts
so you disagree with Kubrick

Kubrick made those cuts after the movie under-performed in the US and before its European release. I don't see how there can be any question about the motivation behind that decision.

[jackinbox]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

Yeah well Kubrick can make dumb decisions too and that was one of them. And if my memory serves me correctly Warner Bros. made him cut it down. So if that’s the case then Kubrick didn’t even want to do it.

Kubrick's contract gave him final cut. Warner Bros couldn't make him do anything that he didn't want to do.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by OgamiittoMcJ

Kubrick would disagree as he made the cuts
so you disagree with Kubrick

What's wrong with disagreeing with Kubrick, or any director who often could never seem to make up his mind about things?

[pmil]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Actually, it's full of DNR. There's plenty of frozen grain and smearing (both side effects of DNR).

I haven't noticed what you are referring to. I'll have to fire it up on my computer to look more closely. What I have noticed is that it could use a bit more detail. If it had the same detail as say An Officer and a Gentleman, which I think has the best detail in a 16x9 release of a movie made on 35mm film, of the movies I own, then it would have been perfect. Otherwise it's a fine transfer. The color is neutral and accurate and brightness, white and black levels and contrast are excellent.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by Axl Rose

The current transfer is pretty dated.

I believe a new 4k scan would improve it quite a bit.

The only way I can see it being improved is simply having a bit more detail, which a new scan may provide. Otherwise it looks great.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Actually, it's full of DNR. There's plenty of frozen grain and smearing (both side effects of DNR).

I just finished examining the disc on my iMac, looking over 2:1 screenshots in Photoshop that I grabbed from different parts of the movie, and I'm not seeing what you are describing. What I see is less than ideal detail affected by an overly compressed transfer and possibly a less than optimal scan. I didn't realize how low the bitrate is with this disc. I'm going to examine it further later on when I have more time. That said, I'm watching it on my TV now and amazingly it still looks great despite that.

[Nicolawicz]

Watch the part where Jack is chasing Danny through the labyrinth, it's pretty obvious there. Every time there's a fast movement, you can see a trail of ghost images left behind.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

Yeah well Kubrick can make dumb decisions too and that was one of them. And if my memory serves me correctly Warner Bros. made him cut it down. So if that’s the case then Kubrick didn’t even want to do it.

Your memory is wrong.

[I KEEL YOU]

I still think that this release holds up very well in 2018.. Certainly well enough for me not to think twice about keeping it should a new release have some issues, such as a teal filter or something similar.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Watch the part where Jack is chasing Danny through the labyrinth, it's pretty obvious there. Every time there's a fast movement, you can see a trail of ghost images left behind.

I haven't looked over that scene yet but what do ghost images have to do with noise reduction? I don't see the connection.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I still think that this release holds up very well in 2018.. Certainly well enough for me not to think twice about keeping it should a new release have some issues, such as a teal filter or something similar.

Yep. That, and/or they'll ruin the contrast by either making it flat or crushing the shadows, especially if one of those disc remastering and selling studios, like Shout, has a hand in it.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by pmil

I haven't looked over that scene yet but what do ghost images have to do with noise reduction? I don't see the connection.

It's a known side effect of DNR. Maybe the encoding can also cause it, I don't know. It's more visible when there's a fast movement, but it's there throughout. Watching it frame by frame, for instance, you can see how the grain of one frame gets retained, disappearing gradually during the next frames.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by OgamiittoMcJ

Kubrick would disagree as he made the cuts
so you disagree with Kubrick

They're both his definitive cuts. I prefer the longer one because imo it feels right.
That said it doesn't really matter to me if I disagree or not.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by pmil

I haven't looked over that scene yet but what do ghost images have to do with noise reduction? I don't see the connection.

Noise reduction falls into two categories: spatial noise reduction and temporal noise reduction. Spatial NR noise reduces a frame like it is a still photograph. Temporal NR compares the frame to the one before and after it (or even several) to try and determine what is noise and what is detail. But when there is a lot of movement but very little color differences (like a camera panning across snow), temporal NR can get confused on what is moving and what isn't and creates odd artifacts that look like trailing.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

It's a known side effect of DNR. Maybe the encoding can also cause it, I don't know. It's more visible when there's a fast movement, but it's there throughout. Watching it frame by frame, for instance, you can see how the grain of one frame gets retained, disappearing gradually during the next frames.

I don't see how noise reduction can produce ghosting. Granted I don't work with video but I do have an expert level of knowledge when it comes to still photography and I don't see how applying noise reduction would be any different with moving frames of film. I'd be interested to hear from someone in the industry or with expert knowledge on video conform and then explain what is happening.

As for what is "known,", I'd be very careful about that. Unfortunately most laymen in this hobby actually have little actual knowledge when it comes to film and image quality, and that includes most so-called professional reviewers, who typically make comments such as, "for a movie from the 80s we shouldn't expect much from the transfer," That's just plain ignorance.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Noise reduction falls into two categories: spacial noise reduction and temporal noise reduction. Spacial NR noise reduces a frame like it is a still photograph. Temporal NR compares the frame to the one before and after it (or even several) to try and determine what is noise and what is detail. But when there is a lot of movement but very little color differences (like a camera panning across snow), temporal NR can get confused on what is moving and what isn't and creates odd artifacts that look like trailing.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of such a frame relevant type of noise reduction with video. That's a really bad idea, whoever came up with it. In still photography such a technique makes sense when comparing multiple frames of the *exact* same *still* image. I see no way to make that work properly with motion photography.

Thanks Lyle; I will research the subject further.

[ldman15]

I was at BB this weekend and saw that they had the Kubrick Triple Feature with The Shining, 2001, and Clockwork Orange on sale for $12.99. So I went ahead and picked that up since I had The Shining and 2001 on DVD and wanted both on Blu-ray.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by pmil

Interesting. I wasn't aware of such a frame relevant type of noise reduction with video. That's a really bad idea, whoever came up with it. In still photography such a technique makes sense when comparing multiple frames of the *exact* same *still* image. I see no way to make that work properly with motion photography.

Some (perhaps most) noise reducers work with both spatial and temporal elements. They cut a "mask" around moving objects, and only use temporal NR to clean the not-moving parts of a frame, and spatial to clean the parts in motion. Really advanced noise-reducers use "motion vectors" to treat moving parts of a frame like still parts by determining the direction of the motion and "matching" the moving part between frames. Even on my Core i7, really good motion-compensated NR can only process about two frames per second in high definition.

Of course, any temporal noise reduction must take scene cuts into account, so if a frame is, say, more than 40% different (this threshold is adjustable) from the one that comes before or next, it won't be used for any temporal NR.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Some (perhaps most) noise reducers work with both spatial and temporal elements. They cut a "mask" around moving objects, and only use temporal NR to clean the not-moving parts of a frame, and spatial to clean the parts in motion. Really advanced noise-reducers use "motion vectors" to treat moving parts of a frame like still parts by determining the direction of the motion and "matching" the moving part between frames. Even on my Core i7, really good motion-compensated NR can only process about two frames per second in high definition.

Well, a 2MP still frame with the kind of noise reduction apps and plugins I've used with still images would be essentially instant on my i7 Mac. I couldn't say exactly how quick because normally I work with 35mm film scans that are over 20MP and are large 16 bit files. I would think the companies doing that kind of work would have far more capable hardware than we have. My still image experience would have me apply the same level and type of noise reduction to every single frame, assuming it should be used in the first place, and assuming the same film type. What you are describing sounds more like an acceptable compromise for recording video, like for smartphones with their tiny sensors. I don't see the point in applying such a method to an existing film being mastered for a disc.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by ldman15

I was at BB this weekend and saw that they had the Kubrick Triple Feature with The Shining, 2001, and Clockwork Orange on sale for $12.99. So I went ahead and picked that up since I had The Shining and 2001 on DVD and wanted both on Blu-ray.

Thanks for reminding me; I still have my unwanted Clockwork Orange disc from that triple feature that I need to sell. I tried once before and even at a good price no one wanted it.