Blu-Ray Best Of The Best - for discussing releases only

[Dogg Thang]

The much talked-about Predator blu-ray that has screenshots posted a few pages back. And, from my own experience of watching an atrocity in motion - Star Trek VI. That movie looks even worse in motion than in stills because whatever filter is on it seems to animate.

[SharkSkin-Man]

I can forgive BR's like saving private ryan/300 for the grain - its intentional and suits the action (although a option to remove it would be nice)

Grain is normally intentional, no? If a picture is 100% grain-free it doesn't look like a film anymore, it looks cheap and flat.

If the director did not intend for the picture to contain any grain they would shoot on video.

[JP]

I am paying for the source to be cleaned up - grit and grain free. When i look at an object with my eyes in the real world, i dont see a layer of grain over it.

If you're watching a grain free product then it hasn't been cleaned, it's actually been dirtied up. You's not looking at a layer of grain, it's not something that's separate to the medium, it is the medium.

The old 'its the way the director intented it' doesnt wash with me either. Technology has moved on. I'm sure directors would have loved to have their work presented in crystal clear HD rather than people seeing a crackily old RF feed or VHS tape.

I don't disagree at all, having seen Da Vinci's The Last Supper in person I can't help but feel that the 5000 piece jigsaw my sister used to have was superior in every way.

Director's have had the option of using vaseline filters almost since the dawn of film. It's not a new technology. And luckily, yes, a lot of director's do love to have their work presented in crystal clear HD which is why so many of them would not want to see their work with information added in such a way as has happened in this Predator release.

As I've said before, I really don't like to simplify these issue into something as simple as right & wrong as I don't feel these things are that simple. If people like something then they like it, end of story.

What I really don't like though is that nobody here, or anyway else when they've given reason as to why they prefer this sort of treatment have been able to give any correct information as to why that is. A simple, "I prefer how it looks" is adequate and I would accept that but explanations which suggest that films like this are now cleaner and that film grain is no different to a layer of dirt is, for lack of a better word, inaccurate.

[Lyris]

I'm sure directors would have loved to have their work presented in crystal clear HD rather than people seeing a crackily old RF feed or VHS tape.

I don't understand why you think a film with grain on it is somehow "not HD".

In any case, you're wrong. I can tell you from experience that directors want their films to look like films, not like a "this one goes up to 11" video processing test film.

If the director did not intend for the picture to contain any grain they would shoot on video.

This ^

There's some misunderstanding here that I'd also like to clean up:

I bought the BR of sideways (one of my fav films), and feck me its dreadful - grain, grit , flecks , colour bleed, jez. I know its an 'indie' type fim, but i really craved for an immaculate print. There really isnt that much difference to a upscaled dvd.

The biggest limiting factor of DVD is the low resolution. Grain, grit, flecks, etc. shouldn't make the disc look like an upscaled DVD. If there isn't a lot of detail visible, it's likely that that's just an unfortunate (and largely unfixable) issue related to the source material. Or it could be a bad video transfer done a long time ago. I haven't seen the disc so can't say.

Lastly, colour bleed - really? That sounds like very poor mastering or a TV-side issue.

I would much rather have that new print of predator

It's not a new print. It's not even a new video transfer. And the reason I clarify the terminology here is to remind you of a fact - It's the same old master - which wasn't excellent to start with - run through a filter to save money. Is that good enough for you on the ultimate home video format?

The old 'its the way the director intented it' doesnt wash with me either. Technology has moved on. I'm sure directors would have loved to have their work presented in crystal clear HD rather than people seeing a crackily old RF feed or VHS tape.

You're right, they would. Nothing about that new version of Predator is "crystal clear" and thanks to the definition-reducing temporal averaging used to reduce the grain, the definition is reduced.

Can I just hammer that point home:

the DEFINITION IS REDUCED

on a HIGH DEFINITION format.

The processes used for grain or noise reduction (they're often the same ones) selectively remove information from the picture.

If anyone watching BD doesn't care about seeing the film the way it was meant to be seen, then they can use the controls on their television set to make their own goofy abstraction of the picture. A little bit more sharpness here, perhaps? Oh, let's clip some shadow details by dialing the Brightness down too far - it doesn't matter how the filmmakers wanted it, after all. Colour? Screw that, it's not like there are dedicated colorists who understand colour theory and the way colours interact working in the industry? Nah, let's just turn that control up and make it all nice and vivid. Definition? I didn't buy a High Definition TV and BD player to see High Definition! Turn the noise reduction up up up!

[Scythe]

OT but this seems to be by far the busiest HD thread:

Has anyone had their set ISF'ed and if so was it worth it?

[ezee ryder]

I thought the E3 press conferences thread made it clear that HD is nothing more than a few more pixels and we should stick to SD?

[Lyris]

Composite video is da bomb!

[teddymeow]

Composite video is da bomb!

You Sir, are far too hi-tech for me. I'm happy with my RF cable!

[anephric]

Dark? There is no difference in brightness between the two.

Well, it has been contrast-boosted

[Lyris]

Oops, my bad!

[Number45]

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Amazon/High_Def_Deals/HDD_Spotlight_Bargain:_Predator:_Ultimate_Hunter_Edition_Blu-ray_$13.99_at_Amazon/5004

They seem to understand at least.

[bash]

Lyris, I've seen plenty of your posts here and AVforums and I have nothing but respect regarding your knowledge on this subject. However I have to say in this case ignorance is bliss. For me, if the experts such as yourself are telling me the UHE of Predator is inferior yet I cant see it then I'll just agree to disagree with yourself and enjoy my copy....... when it finally bloody arrives in the post!

By the way the nerds, fanboys etc comments werent meant as disrespect either.

[teddymeow]

All this talk of Predator...I want to bloody watch it now.

Luckily it's on Film4 now!!

[Matt]

Grain is intrinsic to the cinematic look. It's there in the cinema, it's part of the language of cinema. It's why digital films look cold, though it does suit CG animated films.

If you want to get technical, there are loads of "improvements" that sound like they'd make a film better - higher frame rate and full shutter being the two most obvious. But each of those things takes away from the cinematic look, and frankly look like home video (see latter Mann films). And in case anyone mentions specific Mann shots, that's noise, not grain. Big difference.

And please, do not assume directors want the clean, shot on HD look. Some do, many don't. Many who shoot on HD actually add grain in post production (I'm doing that right now). And many stick with film for a variety of reasons.

Budgetary concerns aside, if a director wanted they can shoot with fine grain stock and considerably reduce grain. But they don't, they choose a stock for a variety of reasons and grain is one of the key attributes. They expose a certain way to get the look they want.

Grain is but one tool to tell a story. Subconsciously, the viewer will associate different levels of grain with different periods of film history, and different films. Want to make a western? Go for a stock as close to Leone as you can, you're draw on the viewers cinema knowledge and they'll make that connection between the films.

Grain is, ahem, ingrained in cinematic history. Trying to remove it to please viewers who think HD equals Super Smooth and Clean is idiotic. Instead, those viewers should be informed. Maybe a little featurette saying why the following film is grainy.

And end it with the instructions, "And if you're still convinced grain is bad, go to your TV picture menu, turn on Dynamic Contrast, pump the colours all the way up, and turn on the inbuilt DNR your set has." It'll look like **** but if that's what you want, so be it.

I wonder if the people not "getting" the grain look are regular cinema goers?

[Lyris]

I wonder if the people not "getting" the grain look are regular cinema goers?

I'm sure they are, but when you go to the cinema, it really is like being in a different world and people take it for granted. Watching a film on a television set at home is nowhere near as satisfying, so people just don't make the connection. That's my theory, anyway.

And that leads me to another point. Try watching a degrained movie on a big-screen projection setup. It is really, really horrible to look at, even worse than it looks on a TV.

And end it with the instructions, "And if you're still convinced grain is bad, go to your TV picture menu, turn on Dynamic Contrast, pump the colours all the way up, and turn on the inbuilt DNR your set has." It'll look like **** but if that's what you want, so be it.

Yeah, if people don't like grain, they can deal with it themselves.

In fact, 2010 Samsung TVs actually shipped with temporal smoothing (noise/grain reduction) *undefeatable*. I marked them down for it and had a word with their engineers, so it's fixed now with the latest firmware update (anyone with a 2010 Samsung TV, the update is on their web site). You can still turn it on if you want it though (eew...)

Here's some nice stuff from Panasonic (who understand accurate reproduction of movies very well now, thanks to their facility in Hollywood) on film grain and why it's so important. Emphasis mine:

“Film Grain” is the random optical texture of
processed photographic film due to the presence
of small grains of metallic silver developed from
silver halide that have received enough photons.
It is one of the points that the film makers insist
be reproduced to retain the picture quality. “Film
Grain” is often considered as an artistic effect, or
part of the “ART”. Sometimes film makers use
them more willingly as special effects to enhance
a character’s expression of feeling or to indicate
that a sequence is from the past.

Therefore, from the beginning of development of
Blu-ray standard, film makers have requested us
to keep the “Film Grain” even after compression.
That request inspired the engineers to invent a
new codec called H.264 High profile. Thanks to
the combination of the huge capacity of Blu-ray
disc and H.264 high profile, the “Film Grain”
information is kept on Blu-ray disc as it was
intended on the original film.
Through our experiences, we began to
understand the importance of the “Film Grain”
as the film makers have pointed out. Some think
that the film grain is a kind of “noise”, but if we
remove the film grain from the pictures, it looks
softer and loses details. It is far from “high
quality”.
We learned that the film grain looks like noise
on a single frame, but we watch movies as a flow
of frames. The film grain which appears
randomly and independently on every frame are
accumulated in human eyes (or brains). And that
gives us more details in motion images. That
affect works both spatially and temporally to
increase both sharpness and color depth.
Therefore, by keeping the film grain, we can get
more detail and better reproduction of the vivid
texture of the movies.