Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > DVD and Blu-ray Discussion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19-06-2010, 22:49   #61
anephric
Kidney Thief
 
anephric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Derby, UK
Posts: 22,698
Thanks: 33
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
Those caps you link to are not the worst case examples: the plastic Arnie shot is not a manipulated capture - it's real, and it's ******* diabolical.
__________________
www.khaaan.com

Last edited by anephric; 19-06-2010 at 22:49.
anephric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2010, 23:27   #62
Shingster
Trusted User
 
Shingster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,456
Thanks: 491
Thanked 315 Times in 208 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post
No, the reason DNR is used on old film releases is because the 'average consumer' doesn't like grain. They think grain means the picture is bad somehow.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has a decent sized circle of friends who certainly never visit film forums or read reviews online and yet regularly visit the cinema and have a DVD/Blu-ray collection purchsed entirely in High Street stores, and I myself have never heard a single complaint from any of them about grainy transfers - in fact on the odd occassion that I've mentioned film grain or digital noise it has elicited a completely baffled response every time. It's DVD reviewers who in the early days of the format weren't sure what they should be complaining about when they saw a OAR anamorphic transfer and so cottoned on to the idea of "film grain" (and I use that quote loosely) who are to blame for all this grain=bad/DNR nonsense.

You say the opinion of the average consumer is dictating studio policy on DVD/BD transfers, but when exactly have you ever known a casual film fan provide feedback in any kind of forum anywhere? In my opinion what really drives studios to nuke analogue texture is the thinking ever since the digital format really took off that a digital format should exhibit a pristine digital image.

Last edited by Shingster; 19-06-2010 at 23:36.
Shingster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2010, 23:34   #63
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
The DNR issue is old, as far back as the format war in 2006 and yes it was in response to feedback from punters saying you need to 'clean up' these mucky old transfers as they look bad.
thescrounger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 00:12   #64
Shingster
Trusted User
 
Shingster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,456
Thanks: 491
Thanked 315 Times in 208 Posts
The slightly more techno-savvy and interested punters yes, not the majority punters who impulse by films in HMV and have never read, let alone written, any online DVD reviews or forum posts.
Shingster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 00:19   #65
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
I wouldn't sell BD punters short. Anybody that buys a Blu-ray will have an opinion on the quality of the product. You only have to look on amazon reviews to see this in action. And in particular the reviews of the barebones Predator Blu-ray will show you that non tech savy people thought the picture was terrible and no better than the DVD, which it clearly was better, but to them it wasn't. Those same people will probably buy the new version with all the features and love the 'remastered' picture quality too.

Last edited by thescrounger; 20-06-2010 at 00:27.
thescrounger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 00:33   #66
Shingster
Trusted User
 
Shingster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,456
Thanks: 491
Thanked 315 Times in 208 Posts
The new transfer doesn't look significantly different to the old one (which wasn't massively grainy to begin with), so I highly doubt it will change their opinion.

Last edited by Shingster; 20-06-2010 at 00:34.
Shingster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 00:35   #67
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
The old transfer was very grainy in places, and the new version won't be. Therefore the average punter that posted a comment on the old BD:

Quote:
"as stated by another reviewer the source material was already a little grainy and the High Def transfer seems only to highlight this further"

I found too many long scenes throughout the movie overly grainy, which really disappointed me as I was expecting alot more.
Will be happy.

Last edited by thescrounger; 20-06-2010 at 00:43.
thescrounger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 00:49   #68
Shingster
Trusted User
 
Shingster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,456
Thanks: 491
Thanked 315 Times in 208 Posts
Sounds like the average punter = people who agree with you.
Shingster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 07:11   #69
LouBarlow
Retired Member
 
LouBarlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 55,655
Thanks: 923
Thanked 979 Times in 620 Posts
I think lossy screengrabs should be banned from the internet. They make people go insane and are worth jack-**** when evaluating quality and/or defects. I don't care how much you 'trust' someone over on the AVSforums.
LouBarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 10:12   #70
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Agreed, I get the feeling the majority of DNR haters are people that look at screen grabs and say 'no sale'.
thescrounger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 14:09   #71
RomerojpgX
Dead
 
RomerojpgX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hell
Posts: 10,543
Thanks: 38
Thanked 53 Times in 38 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post
I wouldn't sell BD punters short. Anybody that buys a Blu-ray will have an opinion on the quality of the product.
I know many people who have Blu Rays and HDTV, the vast majority have a brain the size of a grain of sand when it comes to what they are looking at. If I say it looks good, they will agree and follow like sheep, the masses are sheep, easily led.

You are giving people wayyyyyyyyy to much back slapping, when in fact they are ignorant on the whole on the subject. I talk to them all the time and the crap you get back from "Normal" people is insane.

Do not give them any credit at all, they do not deserve it. They may have an opinion, but they are talking twoddle most of the time.

A few friends of mine have HDTVs, it took them ages to even find out they did not even have HD, as they needed a source! they were happily watching standard TV on their HDTV and for months had been going WOW look at this amazing HD picture.

That is the "Public" for you. They are the vast majority, not us.


Even paid experts say such idiotic things it is no wonder the masses talk such drivel. This crap was written in the new issue of FHM
Quote:
Dont Consider anything over 40in if youre going to be sitting less than 4m from the set

That from an "Expert" from What HIFI.

What chance has the public got with idiots like that feeding the masses who read FHM and normal stuff (not a forum on the net).

Last edited by RomerojpgX; 20-06-2010 at 14:11. Reason: any
RomerojpgX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 14:12   #72
SIMON ADEBISI
****
 
SIMON ADEBISI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Luimneach, Eire
Posts: 40,976
Thanks: 485
Thanked 528 Times in 241 Posts
The snobbery in that post is astounding
SIMON ADEBISI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 14:14   #73
LouBarlow
Retired Member
 
LouBarlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 55,655
Thanks: 923
Thanked 979 Times in 620 Posts
What's wrong with WHAT HI-FI's advice on viewing distances? Sounds about right to me. Weren't you the one who sits with his nose up against his TV set though romero?

No wonder you notice all the defects.

Last edited by LouBarlow; 20-06-2010 at 14:15.
LouBarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 14:21   #74
RomerojpgX
Dead
 
RomerojpgX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hell
Posts: 10,543
Thanks: 38
Thanked 53 Times in 38 Posts
No I notice defects becuase I open my eyes and see them.

Some watch the film - not the transfer, which many on here admit they do. No wonder defects dont bug them, no matter how dire and obvious they are.
RomerojpgX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 14:37   #75
LouBarlow
Retired Member
 
LouBarlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 55,655
Thanks: 923
Thanked 979 Times in 620 Posts
How far do you sit from your screen?
LouBarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 14:39   #76
RomerojpgX
Dead
 
RomerojpgX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hell
Posts: 10,543
Thanks: 38
Thanked 53 Times in 38 Posts
1.5 foot.
RomerojpgX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 14:41   #77
LouBarlow
Retired Member
 
LouBarlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 55,655
Thanks: 923
Thanked 979 Times in 620 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomerojpgX View Post
1.5 foot.
Seriously? Why?
LouBarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 14:43   #78
SIMON ADEBISI
****
 
SIMON ADEBISI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Luimneach, Eire
Posts: 40,976
Thanks: 485
Thanked 528 Times in 241 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomerojpgX View Post
1.5 foot.
SIMON ADEBISI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 14:48   #79
RomerojpgX
Dead
 
RomerojpgX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hell
Posts: 10,543
Thanks: 38
Thanked 53 Times in 38 Posts
So I can find defects





Nahh only joking

Depends on what I am watching and on what screen. Ussually on my main 40 inch screen, if its a quality HD transfer around 4 foot, if its poor more distance.

But ther further back you go, the less point there is having HD at all for me, as it all merges together into pointlessness and seeing any difference between 540/720 and 1080 degrades as you go back from a screen.

It is like people going to the cinema and sitting at the back and watching a tiny little box from a hundred foot away, pointless for me. Maybe everyone else likes that.
RomerojpgX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2010, 15:44   #80
LouBarlow
Retired Member
 
LouBarlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 55,655
Thanks: 923
Thanked 979 Times in 620 Posts
There are established viewing distances for a reason though. Sitting 4 foot from a 40 inch means you will be seeing problems with a whole lot of transfers because you are too close.
LouBarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[PS2/XBOX] Mashed:Fully Loaded hezzer Bargain Forum 5 21-03-2005 18:03

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018 Poisonous Monkey Ltd. Part of The Digital Fix Network