How do you judge Blu-ray picture quality?

[Canada]

When reviewing movies like Black Hawk Down that has intentional grain how do you judge picture quality. Because you can't knock the picture quality for having some grain to the picture. How do you differentiate between intentional and excessive grain?

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Canada

How do you judge Blu-Ray picture quality

I judge it against 35mm quality.

[CJS234]

I usually judge picture quality by the bitrate. The higher the better. I'm sure there are more professional ways of testing PQ but thats my simple way of doing it

[GasCat]

There is nothing intentional about film grain. It is an unavoidable consequence of framing the picture.

Put yourself into the shoes of the editor/director after filming. You like the scene and want to use it but wish you would have zoomed in more. Instead of refilming the scene you take the master film and zoom into it instead. Perfect! Except now you have some film grains appearing because you are over-magnifying the frame.

You should never see graining. The larger the grains, the more they zoomed into the film during editing.

[JeffHenry]

Would BD look better than FTA/OTA HDTV on a DELL 27in LCD?

[Chad Varnadore]

Originally Posted by GasCat

There is nothing intentional about film grain. It is an unavoidable consequence of framing the picture.

Put yourself into the shoes of the editor/director after filming. You like the scene and want to use it but wish you would have zoomed in more. Instead of refilming the scene you take the master film and zoom into it instead. Perfect! Except now you have some film grains appearing because you are over-magnifying the frame.

You should never see graining. The larger the grains, the more they zoomed into the film during editing.

I'm sorry, but you're theory is completely incorrect. There are reasons why you may not see film grain - the resolution of the display, the size of the display, the filmstock used, post processing to remove it at the DPs request, filtering to remove it to ease the burden of encoding at bitrates inadequate to handle certain degrees of random noise, etc). But, you can't generalize film.

Many directors like the graininess of film. Spielberg has often noted an affection for grain and it's obvious even in some of his sci-fi productions. And I can think of several films where grain was either digitally added or otherwise exaggerated in the photography for aesthetic effect. 16mm is often used for its starker, more gritty properties. While magnification can enhance grain, it is emulsion that generally determines density.

Digital photography will introduce grain like noise as well, most of us just had never realized it before viewing these films at low DVD resolutions that have to be vertically filtered just to avoid artifacts, not to mention typically have very constrained bit budgets. But with digital photography it's sometimes removed during post production correction of the digital intermediate as well. And as we're seeing DIs created more for film as well, there appears to be some attraction for lessening the appearance of grain as well. But, it'll depend on the film and what the director and DP want out of it's look.

AVC was even designed with the ability to remove grain and then add it back or a synthetic deposit. I assume this is supposed to somehow be more efficient. But, I'm not aware of any titles that have used this approach yet. And can't say that I look forward to it.

[Chad Varnadore]

Originally Posted by Canada

When reviewing movies like Black Hawk Down that has intentional grain how do you judge picture quality. Because you can't knock the picture quality for having some grain to the picture. How do you differentiate between intentional and excessive grain.

Almost anything shot on film and at least half of the movies shot on digital video will have some form of random noise if the video is transparent to the master. How visible this noise is will depend on a variety of different things, including the size and resolution of the display and whether anything is being lost in the signal chain due to inferior algorithms or added noise reduction.

Trying to qualify the difference between what is innate and artifact or altered, is one of the hardest things for a reviewer to do. There are a number of different things you have to look at to try to cooberate suspicion. Bitrate is obviously one, but isn't telling by itself. The presence of other, more distinct artifacts specifically associated with bit starvation is another. A lot of it comes from experience. But without direct comparison to the master itself, often times, it boils down to educated or uneducated guess.

[supersix4]

i spent $$ on bhd 3 times once for the first release on dvd , then the 3 disk collectors edition now the blu-ray lol... watching it on blu-ray just blew away the dvd ... I think its easy to judge it by watching the dvd / vhs w/e b4 seeing it in blu-ray, and seeing how much quality was really lost w/o blu-ray.. + water quality is a good sign too movies i'd never seen like the guardian.

[GasCat]

Thanks for posting Chad. Very interesting read. I believe some film-makers are using it as a way to excuse flaws in their movie. Others are using grains to evoke a time of the past.

If you can recall, what movies have actually added noise? Thanks.

[Banjo]

Originally Posted by GasCat

If you can recall, what movies have actually added noise? Thamls.

A good example would have to be 'Babel'.

[GasCat]

Thanks Banjo.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Banjo

A good example would have to be 'Babel'.

I think Babel was intentional. It is a budget movie and on certain locations like Morocco, it is hard to control the weather. The grain on those footage may have pushed the director for more uniformity. I believe the filming of Babel was a year long.

To have in-film grain, you can simply use 16mm or 8mm and later use a 35mm final print (Leaving Las Vegas). You can also use fast film stock and not light the set adequately; it's the same with HD cameras. (in-film means without any digital noise added in post)

Originally Posted by GasCat

If you can recall, what movies have actually added noise? Thanks.

Final Fantasy: SWithin. Monster House. Surf's Up. There were some earlier MiniDV indie films as well as films shot in HD that had added noise.

To answer the OP: a really nice flat-panel HDTV or a 1080p24 projector.


fuad

[Shin-Ra]

I'm pretty sure Silent Hill would have had some added.

[nhaase]

Black level has been a good measuring stick for me. When I got Black Hawk Down on BD, I put in my regular DVD in my 360, output at 1080i through component, and had the BD at 1080p through HDMI. The SD DVD looked like I was watching it through smoked glass. The blackest black there was gray, whereas on the BD it was BLACK. I then put the SD DVD in my PS3, and while the black level was a bit better, it wasn't anywhere near the PS3. This is true for both black level, and detail in the darkest parts of the screen.

I've done this, too for Big Fish, Lord of War, and Training Day, with the same results.

[BorrowedTime]

Originally Posted by supersix14

i spent $$ on bhd 3 times once for the first release on dvd , then the 3 disk collectors edition now the blu-ray lol... watching it on blu-ray just blew away the dvd ... I think its easy to judge it by watching the dvd / vhs w/e b4 seeing it in blu-ray, and seeing how much quality was really lost w/o blu-ray.. + water quality is a good sign too movies i'd never seen like the guardian.

lol, I'm one up on you SuperSix14. Black Hawk Down: Original DVD release, 3 Disc Special Edition, Blu-ray, AND UMD for the PSP.

[Banjo]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

I'm pretty sure Silent Hill would have had some added.

Yep.

I'm pretty sure 21 Grams was intentional too as well. I'll say the same thing about some Tony Scott flicks.

[Canada]

21 Grams definatly had intentional grain it. Ridley & Tony Scott films also have intentional grain to them. Plus some of there films the colour (right spelling I am Canadian after all) are tweaked beyond belief, can that add to the grain or are the two unrelated. I think the answer would be the latter.

[Canada]

I still have not got a bought a Blu-Ray player because I am some what cheap. I am looking at buying one around Christmas time. It is 6 months to the day as I type this, by Christmas the prices should have come down.

Black Hawk Down how many times I have/am going to purchase it.

1. Regular Edition
2. Super Bit (Way better audio)
3. Blu-Ray (Uncompressed Audio) Should be an orgasm for my ears, can't wait