IMO, Blu-ray does not deliver it's promise [incorrect settings / mod]

[bhampton]

I don't remember Blu Ray making any promises.

However.... I don't know of any better way to watch movies than Blu Ray. It's simply the best and I love it.



=Brian

[DarkhovaHT]

Im on a campaign for a clearer image and if grain is the nature of film then something needs to change cuz grain definently doesnt improve the PQ.....Just my opinion

[skioutwest]

I agree....grain is not acceptable in photographs, why should it be in motion pictures?

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by skioutwest

I agree....grain is not acceptable in photographs, why should it be in motion pictures?

Why isn't grain acceptable in photographs? I am a professional nature, landscape, and wildlife still photographer. I shoot both on film (transparencies from 35mm, medium format and 4" X 5") and digitally. My fine art photos are all over the world. Very few people even comment about grain in my images and that is even from photos that are printed 20" X 30", 24" X 30", and 30" X 37 1/2". Both film and digital have their place and a slightly different look to them. Grain can add something to an image, if it is so desired. Pixels can also be distracting.

Rich

[Slec]

Originally Posted by DarkhovaHT

Im on a campaign for a clearer image and if grain is the nature of film then something needs to change cuz grain definently doesnt improve the PQ.....Just my opinion

Originally Posted by skioutwest

I agree....grain is not acceptable in photographs, why should it be in motion pictures?

ahhhh, so we have a cleverly disguised grain thread...

DarkhovaHT and skioutwest, there are many here who will tell you that you're crazy for hating grain. If you prefer the look without grain, that is your right, after all it is a preference. However, you should learn a bit about grain (others can provide the details if interested) and what you have to give up in the picture when grain is reduced. The artifacts created are especially prominent on large screens (projectors).

[RiseDarthVader]

Okay lets explain why grain is essential part of film. Okay well grain is what makes up the image that are you are watching. Without grain you would have no picture at all. Second grain should never be removed unless it is the directors intention. Reasons why:
1.Grain is what captures all that detail that you love to see on Blu-ray
2.When grain is digitally removed you lose detail in images and gives people waxy looks. Which basically defeats the whole purpose of putting a movie on Blu-ray.

Edit: here look at a comparison http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/...h/33985abe.png You will see what the movie looks like with grain and detail and after they remove the grain you can see a lot of detail is lost.

[aramis109]

This is just another anti-grain thread from people who don't understand how film works. Supposing that digital can do 2k right now... fine. Film has been used to make 8k digital intermediates, with the only limit being the technology. Film isn't the problem. Blu-ray isn't the problem. If you're an absolute grain-hater I suggest sticking to broadcast television until technology can catch up with what you're wanting it to do.

For those of you that hate grain, check out Baraka. It was filmed on 70mm and was (I think) the first 8k film scan. I challenge you to find fault with this movie's picture quality.

I would love for every film to be able to go through this kind of process. Once it becomes more common we'll have a lot less so-called "experts" chiming in downing film and grain. Film has so much more potential than digitally-shot movies right now. What's so hard to understand?

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by aramis109

This is just another anti-grain thread from people who don't understand how film works. Supposing that digital can do 2k right now... fine. Film has been used to make 8k digital intermediates, with the only limit being the technology. Film isn't the problem. Blu-ray isn't the problem. If you're an absolute grain-hater I suggest sticking to broadcast television until technology can catch up with what you're wanting it to do.

For those of you that hate grain, check out Baraka. It was filmed on 70mm and was (I think) the first 8k film scan. I challenge you to find fault with this movie's picture quality.

I would love for every film to be able to go through this kind of process. Once it becomes more common we'll have a lot less so-called "experts" chiming in downing film and grain. Film has so much more potential than digitally-shot movies right now. What's so hard to understand?

Most films don't enjoy a 70mm shot. Because the film is 70mm rather than 35mm, the grain doesn't show through the same, it doesn't obstruct the picture because it's simply too small.

If all films were filmed on 70mm or better and scanned at super high resolutions, grain wouldn't even have a chance to give the picture a noisy effect like it does now and has in the past. That's what people don't like, that the picture isn't pristine. Digital can deliver a more pristine image, but at a definite and lower resolution. Yes, film has greater power now, especially when considering larger film stock and higher quality transfers, but in the future, grain will only be present if the director actually wants it, and the director will be able to make the choice without sacrificing quality in a DNR process or succumbing to a lower resolution master.

[Anthony P]

Never watched Superman Returns

actually, no. I was POed when Warner put lossless on the HD DVD and not the BD, obviously that passed a long time ago, but I never got around to getting it.

[Anthony P]

Im on a campaign for a clearer image and if grain is the nature of film then something needs to change cuz grain definently doesnt improve the PQ.....Just my opinion

grain is part of the picture, next thing you know you will define PQ by the attractiveness of the actress