40 Year Old Virgin BluRay is TERRIBLE

[Blue_MiSfit]

Hi All,

Well... I went out and bought The 40 Year Old Virgin on BluRay today, and was horrified by the quality!

There is heavy noise reduction and over sharpening in the source. It's quite bad, looking like plastic with halos. Simply terrible.

Any ideas on cleaning it up? I tried YAHR, but didn't have much luck... Adding a bit of grain helps hide the temporal noise reduction, but not by much...

Here's a sample:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=25bf0fb511c8d03dd2db6fb9a8902bda


Erm... what's an easy way to trim a chunk off the MKV I ripped the BluRay's H.264 stream to? I haven't posted samples from these before..


~MiSfit

[leeperry]

u can use MKVtoolnix to make a sample....but yeah this one is terrible, maybe even worse than the 2.35 scenes of TDK :D

I don't think there's much you can do...dehaloing will blur things up.

I wish there was some AVS filter we could use in realtime in ffdshow to kill the halos, but this would kill the sharpness too I think :o

[Nightshiver]

Well, he did say that it's over sharpened, so I guess you can always try just to see what it will do.

[Blue_MiSfit]

I know MKVToolnix can break a file into pieces, but how the heck do you trim a specific region?

~MiSfit

[leeperry]

by cutting twice :

1-start > end of clip
2-start of clip

[rack04]

You can use DGSplit.

[Blue_MiSfit]

DGSplit works on MKV?!

[rack04]

DGSplit works on MKV?!

Yes.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=143963

[Blue_MiSfit]

Interesting... Not quite what I'd hoped (works similar to MKVToolNix), but I'll throw in the towel. If only there was something like MPEG2Cut2 for MKV / H.264 :)

I'll update the OP with a mediafire link ASAP.

[edit]

Damn.. it only does arbitrary binary splitting, and doesn't produce proper MKV output. I'll do it with MKVToolNix :)

~MiSfit

[Blue_MiSfit]

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=25bf0fb511c8d03dd2db6fb9a8902bdaa

also updated OP

[*.mp4 guy]

Ahahaha.....
This has to be a joke, thats the only possible explanation.

I swear, there is no way in hell this is hd, Will post back with details, but you will be lucky to get a halo free dvd out of this.

This source is lower resolution then a well mastered ntsc dvd.

I'll see what I can do with it for shits and giggles, and I'll post an image of it after being downsized to 720*480 and reinterpolated with a linear interpolator.

[R3Z]

Looks like a living breathing poster :( Wow that is bad.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Sorry *.mp4 guy... no joke :(

It's a real BluRay rip. Unbelievable as it may be. I was astonished myself.

The tragic thing is, I bet the actual master wasn't half bad. They were just obsessed with killing any and all film grain that they cranked their hardware based real-time denoiser up to max, and this plastic, posterized, haloed crap is what we get :(

Filled with fail.

I welcome any and all suggestions :)

~MiSfit

[*.mp4 guy]

reinterpolated (http://img390.imageshack.us/my.php?image=reinterpolatedtrustmeq8xm7.jpg)
reference (http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=referencetrustmeq85jpeggy3.jpg)

[edit] minor high frequency differences between the two is the result of jpeg compression, as the source has absolutely no high frequencies at all

[sumawo13]

Upscaled VHS.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Damn!!! You weren't kidding.

Well... I guess I'll just keep my DVD backup

:rolleyes:

~MiSfit

[*.mp4 guy]

Yeah, I was eyeballing it before, but the comparison to a reinterpolated image clinches it. Surprisingly there are some minor horizontal differences introduced by reinterpolation, while the vertical dimension remains identical. Still, its clearly a badly denoised SD source badly interpolated to HD, and then badly oversharpened..... Bad.

How can they sell this as HD?

I now have to go make an example of a good(ish) SD-> HD interpolation, so that people know interpolation doesn't have to look this horrible.

[edit] acceptable quality sd-HD (http://img381.imageshack.us/my.php?image=quicksdtohdkh5.jpg)

[Comatose]

Can you detail what you mean by "linear interpolation"? What exactly do you do?

[*.mp4 guy]

linear is anything like spline36, lanczos, bicubic, basically anything you can do with a FIR filter. I was just trying to say, that I wasn't using anything fancy, like eedi2 or needi, etc.

[Comatose]

Oh. Thanks :P

[2Bdecided]

This is amazing. Is it all like that?!

Does it look exactly like that when played on a stand-alone connected directly to an HDTV?

Cheers,
David.

[NerdWithNoLife]

The tragic thing is, I bet the actual master wasn't half bad. They were just obsessed with killing any and all film grain that they cranked their hardware based real-time denoiser up to max, and this plastic, posterized, haloed crap is what we get :(

This is why Ben Waggoner jokingly says a compressionist should aim for balanced mediocrity, meaning things should look equally "okay," without any one thing being high quality at the expense of another thing looking awful.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Yep, the whole movie looks that bad. I don't have a standalone BluRay player, but the stream I provided is a direct cut of the H.264 elementary stream. Adding noise on playback helps a bit, but not much...

It's really astonishing. I actually prefer the look of my CRF20 DVD backup!!!

@NerdWithNoLife:
Jokingly indeed, but it's a smart (if pessimistic) way to look at things.

~MiSfit

[leeperry]

I personally use GrainFactory3() on all my HD stuff to regain proper grain.

the worst on that point is the Open Season 2 BD, they simply killed all the grain....it feels as if you had set deband() to the max :(

[Blue_MiSfit]

I played with Grain Factory (not grainfactory3, what's the story there?), and wasn't happy with the results. I actually preferred simply AddGrainC(...) in most cases.

~MiSfit

[leeperry]

well GrainF3 is like GrainF, but on steroids :eek:

Didee is such a brilliant AVS script coder, I'm seriously shocked :D

you can't beat Didee's code, it looks too damn good http://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/roi.gif

[Blue_MiSfit]

Care to share a link?

[NerdWithNoLife]

Didee is such a brilliant AVS script coder, I'm seriously shocked :D
Agreed. AviSynth is the best example I know of the benefits of the open source community. Put Didée's restoration/cleanup skills against the built-in filters of programs that cost well into the thousands of dollars, and my money is on Didée!

[Sagekilla]

Anyone else find it a bit funny that this (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1449/40yearoldvirgin.html#Section3) review on the picture quality of 40 YOV is praising the blu-ray version for giving a "visual upgrade" over the DVD version? Just goes to show how many people have no clue what the difference is between DVD and upconverted crap..

[NerdWithNoLife]

From the review:
Likewise, while the BD isn’t plagued by the mosquito noise, haloing, and heavy edge enhancement of the standard DVDs, its clean image still suffers from lingering edge enhancement.
Uh...

What? Isn't haloing the counterweight to mosquito noise, and the result of heavy edge enhancement, DVD or not?

[Blue_MiSfit]

Yeah... highdefdigest usually has solid reviews too. I shook my head in disgust.

Haloing is the result of heavy edge enhancement / sharpening, but not necessarily the opposite of mosquito noise.

~MiSfit

[NerdWithNoLife]

Correct: not an exact opposite, but a potential problem of filtering out problems like mosquito noise.

And isn't this thread a better review?

[MikeyBK]

Not as bad as 40 YOV but I still hated some of the grainyness of Bangkok Dangerous, and wondered why they couldn't make the entire BD in full HD like the first image from some pretty great HiDef scenes???


http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5448/bangkokdangerousdecentfr6.th.jpg (http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bangkokdangerousdecentfr6.jpg)

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8509/bangkokdangerousdvdorblhf8.th.jpg (http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bangkokdangerousdvdorblhf8.jpg)

[Sagekilla]

@NerdWithNoLife: Actually not really, the same process that causes haloing (excessive sharpening or edge enhancement) can also make mosquito noise a lot more prominent ;) Sharpeners don't know the difference between noise and detail, since they can look the same, so both can (potentially, some sharpeners are a bit "smarter" about only targeting detail) get enhanced.

But, if you're thinking about something naive like: Blur the source to damp the noise, then sharpen to get detail back (too much --> haloing) then I can see what you're getting at.

Note 2: Also yes, I'd say this thread has a much better handle on the image quality of 40 YOV. I normally trust highdefdigest enough to give a good impression on the image quality. Like M4G proved before, this looks to be nothing more than upscaled DVD, which is no better than a regular DVD at all.

@MikeyBK: The grain in those pictures looks pretty "large" compared to most grain. You might be able to filter it out with FFT3DFilter by only filtering the LF (sigma3, sigma4) components, then throw back in some smaller grain so it doesn't look horrendous. Images look a bit soft too me too, almost seems like when they transferred it from film the scanner was slightly out of focus :(

[MikeyBK]

@MikeyBK: The grain in those pictures looks pretty "large" compared to most grain. You might be able to filter it out with FFT3DFilter by only filtering the LF (sigma3, sigma4) components, then throw back in some smaller grain so it doesn't look horrendous. Images look a bit soft too me too, almost seems like when they transferred it from film the scanner was slightly out of focus :(

I'll look into what you're saying to try, but that whole Bluray is basically like that on my HDTV thru my Blray player from the original, so while it's a screenshot and not a true representation of how it appears on the HDTV from the original, I just wanted to show how different two seperate screenshots from the very same Bluray looks so different in terms of PQ. and that it's nowhere near some other Blurays like IronMan or DarkKnight

[Blue_MiSfit]

I think that actually looks pretty good.

Sure, there's a fair amount of grain, and the second screenshot is soft (out of focus?), but the overall picture quality is pretty good IMO..


~MiSfit

[*.mp4 guy]

Not as bad as 40 YOV but I still hated some of the grainyness of Bangkok Dangerous, and wondered why they couldn't make the entire BD in full HD like the first image from some pretty great HiDef scenes???


Are you blind, thats all clearly HD, its not even comparable to 40 YOV. It is a bit soft, but thats much better then the alternatives, and the resolution is clearly there, (look at the eyes/forhead)

Its people like you that cause problems like this (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/pans%20labyrinth/PanslabyrinthUSversion6.png). There is no excuse for a release like that, when the master is clearly excellent (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/pans%20labyrinth/PanslabyrinthUKversion6.png).

using NR on something that is supposed to be master quality is only acceptable when the source is of overall low quality (and you therefore wont lose anything), a lot of dv footage is in this category, or when the noise is so severe that removing it will give an improved sense of detail (this shoudn't ever happen with a color 35mm film). Anyway, the studios are so horribly bad at processing video, you really just want them to do as little as possible, if the source needs work, your better off doing it yourself.

There isn't a an HD tv in existance that doesn't have built in NR, just use that if you are determined to destroy the picture.

your source sharpened (http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thisishdug8.jpg)
Your source downsampled to sd, reinterpolated, then sharpened. (http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thisisnotuu4.jpg)

[2Bdecided]

Its people like you that cause problems like this (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/pans%20labyrinth/PanslabyrinthUSversion6.png). There is no excuse for a release like that, when the master is clearly excellent (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/pans%20labyrinth/PanslabyrinthUKversion6.png).Why did they do that? Was the grain eating up too much bitrate, or do you think they got complaints about it?

FWIW I'm no lover a film grain (I prefer clean looking video!), but if removing grain also removes details or makes the picture look artificial (which it normally does), then grain needs to stay. Your eye eventually ignores it in motion, unless it causes coding artefacts.

Cheers,
David.

[Sagekilla]

If they downsampled then upsampled again to "reduce noise," they're doing it an extremely stupid way. You're killling details AND noise, but much less noise than you'd think.

TBH, they're better off trying to stabilize the grain pattern to something that isn't as jittery, or try removing a small amount of it. Not a downsize -> upsize chain. You'd get much better looking video with a simple temporal filter..

[2Bdecided]

I don't think mp4_guy's sample was an example of that. Just too much denoising.

I can't believe the 40YOV example (which is SD>HD) was done to remove noise. More like a cock-up somewhere. As has been said, it's not even good SD>HD.

Cheers,
David.

[Sagekilla]

The first sample looks strongly like they did excessive noise removal, followed by sharpening. It looks like they downsampled in there somewhere along the lines, because playing around with avisynth and doing HD -> SD -> HD -> sharpen gives very similar results to the US master.

[MikeyBK]

Are you blind, thats all clearly HD, its not even comparable to 40 YOV. It is a bit soft, but thats much better then the alternatives, and the resolution is clearly there, (look at the eyes/forhead)

Its people like you that cause problems like this (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/pans%20labyrinth/PanslabyrinthUSversion6.png). There is no excuse for a release like that, when the master is clearly excellent (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/pans%20labyrinth/PanslabyrinthUKversion6.png).

using NR on something that is supposed to be master quality is only acceptable when the source is of overall low quality (and you therefore wont loose anything), a lot of dv footage is in this category, or when the noise is so severe that removing it will give an improved sense of detail (this shoudn't ever happen with a color 35mm film). Anyway, the studios are so horribly bad at processing video, you really just want them to do as little as possible, if the source needs work, your better off doing it yourself.

There isn't a an HD tv in existance that doesn't have built in NR, just use that if you are determined to destroy the picture.

your source sharpened (http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thisishdug8.jpg)
Your source downsampled to sd, reinterpolated, then sharpened. (http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thisisnotuu4.jpg)

WTF are you supposedly saying?? If all your HD content on your HDTV looks like the picks you claim you 'shapened', lmfao!!... you need a better set or system dude.
Yeah my HDTV has auto adjustment controls, but as you said yourself, it shouldn't need to be and is actually better if it didn't.
Even most my 1080i HD cable content is far crisper than some of the scenes from Bangkok Dangerous. I suppose you are going to say that 300 was also pure HD content and only needs HDTV adjustments to see the resolution properly???

Actually, it's oozas like you that think they invented HD and 'ass'ume that they know it all, who claim others should have the same opinion as you. BTW, your rambling made no sense, how do you propose that I'm the one releasing non-acceptable HD content?? LMFAO:rolleyes:
If you read my post properly I clearly basically was saying why the same Bluray has varying HD content and clearly stated that it wasn't anything as bad as and wasn't comparing it in any way to 40 YOV.

[*.mp4 guy]

[1]WTF are you supposedly saying?? If all your HD content on your HDTV looks like the picks you claim you 'shapened', lmfao!!... you need a better set or system dude.

[2]Yeah my HDTV has auto adjustment controls, but as you said yourself, it shouldn't need to be and is actually better if it didn't.

[3](1)Even most my 1080i HD cable content is far crisper than some of the scenes from Bangkok Dangerous.(2) I suppose you are going to say that 300 was also pure HD content(3) and only needs HDTV adjustments to see the resolution properly???

[4](1)Actually, it's oozas like you that think they invented HD and 'ass'ume that they know it all, (2)who claim others should have the same opinion as you.

[5]BTW, your rambling made no sense, how do you propose that I'm the one releasing non-acceptable HD content?? LMFAO:rolleyes:

[6]If you read my post properly I clearly basically was saying why the same Bluray has varying HD content and clearly stated that it wasn't anything as bad as and wasn't comparing it in any way to 40 YOV.

[1]The sharpened image is there to be compared to the reinterpolated image, to demonstrate that the source has lots of high resolution detail, that would not be present if it were of truly low quality. I have no reply to your ad hominem supposition.

[2]I never said that HDTV's shouldn't have adjustable picture settings, A manufacturer can, and should include any video processing capabilities they want, as long as they can be turned off. When watching vhs or cartoons, DNR can be quite nice.

[3]
(1)congratulations?
(2)Yes.
(3)No, 300 does not need to be fixed in any way.

[4]
(1/2) lets keep this impersonal, I apologise if you were offended by the tone of my post.
(2)It is not an opinion that your entire source is HD. It is not an opinion that noise reduction reduces resolution. It is not an opinion that the studios have a history of colossal screw ups when attempting to process films.

[5]The studios have said that the reason they use DNR on films is because people complain that they want a noise free picture; that is an unrealistic expectation to have. If people like you didn't make a big stink about the horrible horrible noise, there would be a lot less bad DNR, thiswas the basis for my comment.

Not as bad as 40 YOV but I still hated some of the grainyness of Bangkok Dangerous, and wondered why they couldn't make the entire BD in full HD like the first image from some pretty great HiDef scenes???
[6] If I said X is not as bad as Y, that would be considered a comparison; you made a comparison, not that that is particularly important. The second part of your comment makes it sound like you think that some of the scenes are "less high def" then others, which is not possible if they were shot on the same cameras and scanned with the same equipment, which I'm quite certain they were.

[Sagekilla]

@MikeyBK: As was said before your Bangkok Dangerous sample -is- HD, but it's only soft or perhaps slightly out of focus. (either in scanning or during the actual filming). If that source wasn't at taken 1080p though, it'd look far more blurrier, as evidenced by the example where M4G downsampled --> upsampled.

If you wanna tell the difference between native HD and upconverted HD, look for small scale details. Stuff like noise is an easy way to figure this out: 300, while noisy, has clearly defined noise. Try taking a small square of that and resizing it down, then back to the original size. It's going to look a lot more dispersed and blurry.

[MikeyBK]

@*.mp4guy... I just find it A Bit amusing that you would get all in my face about me feeling that there was a difference in the two clips I posted of Bangkok Dangerous, but then you post a rant about these two frames!?
Its people like you that cause problems like this (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/pans%20labyrinth/PanslabyrinthUSversion6.png). There is no excuse for a release like that, when the master is clearly excellent (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/pans%20labyrinth/PanslabyrinthUKversion6.png)

And I never stated that it wasn't HD but rather just not the crisp HD I'd expect from my Blurays...... half of Bangkok Dangerous is incredible in detail and sharpness, so why not all of it?... that's all I was complaining about. Iron Man, Dark Knight, House Bunny, and even Disaster Movie is in incredible HD thru-out the entire Bluray content, so why not Bangkok Dangerous?? If you're saying that my HDTv should auto adjust to remove all that grainy texture, why would you say go ahead and ruin it by adjusting it??
And if you're saying that is just the way it is and I should simply accept it... No I don't... I'll simply won't buy those BDs if I know.

I also clearly stated that it wasn't as bad as the 40 YOV, I was referring to my opinion on aqn entirely other matter.... my unwillingness to accept that 300 is a perfect HD Bluray...
300 sucked on Bluray, waste of my money..... just lucky that I loved the movie itself.

Maybe it's just me, but the two clips you posted have almost non-exsistent differences, and you're all in my shit because I didn't like the difference in my two clips??

It's all good, you are free to accept what you'd like, as am I.
I'm content with how my eyes distinguish the differences in what 'I' view... and no one elses view of things should upset me in any way... so ita.s all good guys.

[Sagekilla]

@MikeyBK: M4G never said there was a difference between the two clips you posted. He said they looked soft, but were otherwise genuinely native 1080p and not upsampled. If you're talking about the later comparison, he was pointing out what the source would -really- look like if it were upscaled from a DVD, which is immediately noticeable.

Also, I don't see where you're going with 300: Grain isn't a factor in whether something is HD or not. 300 has excessive grain on purpose, and if you don't like it (like me) then do postprocessing and remove it yourself. Last time I checked, no one is strapping you into a chair and forcing you to watch the movies, so if you don't like it don't watch it. But don't complain and do nothing about it.

[Leak]

300 has excessive grain on purpose[...]
In case someone can't believe that - I've seen it at our local cinema with digital projection in all it's grainy glory when it came out.

So yes, the loads of grain are meant to be there.

[MikeyBK]

@MikeyBK: M4G never said there was a difference between the two clips you posted.
That's just it, he basically ranted on me because I felt that the second of my clips wasn't acceptable and that I wished that they could maintain better consistency thru-out the Blurays.
He said they looked soft, but were otherwise genuinely native 1080p and not upsampled. If you're talking about the later comparison, he was pointing out what the source would -really- look like if it were upscaled from a DVD, which is immediately noticeable.

I never said that it wasn't 1080p, just that it is clearly not what I see throughout the entire movie on most other Blurays.
The two clips that he posted of Pan Labyrinth is closer visually than the two areas of Bangkok Dangerous I got my two frames from. I just van't understand how you two are saying that just because it's 1080p, thus my two clips are equal...... I can see with my own two eyes that they are not.

Also, I don't see where you're going with 300: Grain isn't a factor in whether something is HD or not. 300 has excessive grain on purpose, and if you don't like it (like me) then do postprocessing and remove it yourself.
I can understand if 300 was made grainy on purpose for theatrical effect, but if so why not thru-out the entire movie?? Some scenes are extremely grainy while some have virtually none. So you're saying that I should just accept it because that must be what the producers wanted?? That's absurd.
I agree with the m4g about one thing, we 'shouldn't' have to be postprocessing our Blurays.... they should simply do a better job in the first place when they putrt it to disc. They are working with the master source so why not?
Last time I checked, no one is strapping you into a chair and forcing you to watch the movies, so if you don't like it don't watch it. But don't complain and do nothing about it.

That's just it also, I can think for myself.
Just because someone tells me that it's 1080p therefore must be perfect, doesn't mean it is......
I don't have to just follow that thought process just because you guys say so.....I can see with my own two eyes and discern for myself.

BTW, I can complain all I'd like. You don't have to like it, but I can complain about anything I'd like Bro. And yes, I can do something about it, I'm already prescreening my Blurays before I buy now.... and if I don't like what I see or even when some BDs have a lot of negative reviews... then I won't get it.
But I can still complain if I buy it but still wish it was more consistent throughout.... 'IMHO' & what 'I' expect HiDef should be....

[2Bdecided]

The thing is, if you want really faultless 1920x1080, you need to start with a high quality 70mm film negative and scan it properly, or a 4k-ish video sensor and downsample it properly.

35mm film (even at its best) isn't good enough to give you 1920x1080 pixels that are so noise-free and pin-sharp that the "film" stage of the process is transparent. When used "artistically", film really looks like film - grain and all.

Likewise, native 1920x1080 4:4:4 video sensors, as used in some video cameras (many "HD" cameras are even lower resolution), aren't really enough for optimum 1920x1080. Just as SD benefits from being originated in HD, so HD benefits from being originated in something higher. This doesn't happen much at all these days, but it will eventually.

Another thing that might upset you is that sometimes shots are intentionally or accidentally or (because of technical limitations) inevitably soft.


The best that you can hope for on your 1920x1080p24 H.264 encoded BluRau disc is a faithful representation of the master - and that will include all the faults of the master. For most content available today, it won't be the best that 1920x1080 can do, but it will be close to the best that that content can look from that master.

I can understand consumers wanting everything to be pin-sharp, and I can understand consumers wanting everything to be noise-free. Delivering this from 35mm film prints that may be neither is a challenge - like it or not, it will always be a subjective compromise - but hopefully it will rarely be as compromised at 40YOV.


btw, there's an interesting blog post about BBC HD, where they discuss some of the complaints they get. Apparently some viewers hate the shallow depth of field typical on HQ drama (they think the picture looks soft), and some viewers hate 25p and prefer 50i. Some viewers don't think the soft film-ish look looks like real HD. There are no comments about noise, but you can imagine that's rather subjective - though at 16Mbps, it may be better to minimise it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/11/bbc_hd_picture_quality_and_dol.html

btw, I know Discovery in the USA reject film which is too grainy for HD broadcast because, while it might look acceptable when viewed directly, it breaks up so badly when encoded that all the detail disappears.

Cheers,
David.

[Leak]

So you're saying that I should just accept it because that must be what the producers wanted?? That's absurd.
Nope, that's par for the course as far as movies are concerned - they make the film the way they like it.

It's up to you to buy/watch it or not depending on that, but you don't get to say in how they make the movie. That's the film crew's job...

[MikeyBK]

So you're saying that I have no right to complain/hope/wish that filmmakers would just deliver that 'pin-sharp' HD video throughout entire Blurays? And all this because I don't like Blurays with that much grain in 'some' / 'most' of the movie?
So I'm gathering that you have experience as a filmaker?

So why is it that the other Blurays I mentioned can maintain that sharpness throughout?
Another example, on the Bluray Wanted, the movie itself has a slight grainyness to it, but on the interview extras it's as crisp as can be.... please let me know why that is?... because it was the filmmakers intent?

This is all pointless, and it appears that this whole thing is being overthought. The final point for each individual 'consumer' is to make up their own minds. And as I stated, I have a mind of my own and I can discern for myself. I can see the differences of most of my Blurays and the couple/few I have that just don't look as good on my system....... period.

As long as you guys are satisfied with accepting things as is, it's all good. I can live with my own viewpoints, I don't need for anyone to tell me that my eyes aren't seeing what they do...lmao

It's all good, and to be honest, I can't even believe how anal this discussion is.

[MikeyBK]

but you don't get to say in how they make the movie. That's the film crew's job...

That's right, I don't. But I 'do' have the right to say that I dislike Blurays which has such a mix of grainyness and not.
Just like it's you're right to just accept what they sell to you and call it 'stunning' HiDef....lmfao

[leeperry]

The first sample looks strongly like they did excessive noise removal, followed by sharpening. It looks like they downsampled in there somewhere along the lines, because playing around with avisynth and doing HD -> SD -> HD -> sharpen gives very similar results to the US master.
all the HD copies of the 40YO virgin I've seen were terrible.....just as bad as the TDK BD.

grain is teh good, look at Babel or 21 grams....Babel's high ISO reel grain is just breathtaking :eek:

look at how they butchered the TDK BD.

left is the BD, right is the quicktime low bitrate trailer(thanks to JohnHD for the comparison) :

http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/1.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/1.png) http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/2.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/2.png)
http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/3.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/3.png) http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/4.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/4.png)
http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/5.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/5.png) http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/6.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/6.png)
http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/7.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/7.png) http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/8.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/8.png)
http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/9.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/9.png) http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/10.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/10.png)
http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/11.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/11.png) http://thumb.phyrefile.com/j/jo/johnhd/2008/11/24/12.png (http://img.phyrefile.com/johnhd/2008/11/24/12.png)

left is the TDK prologue, right is the final TDK BD :

http://www.hdimage.org/images/yw74285qt7kdxu04b795_imaxbb3_thumb.png (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=yw74285qt7kdxu04b795_imaxbb3.png) http://www.hdimage.org/images/jbhmfbm3pp52hyh8se2c_imaxdk3_thumb.png (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=jbhmfbm3pp52hyh8se2c_imaxdk3.png)

they've fixed the colorimetry, fine! but they've zoomed in and added all kind of ugly PP...the second screenshots comparison is just too striking :rolleyes:

I was dying to see the movie after I watched the prologue like 20 times, but they completely blew it! :scared:

it's said on AVS that they went like this for the non-imax parts :
35 mm film -> 4k scan -> upscale to 8k -> DNR, EE applied, master complete -> 1080p/2k

[*.mp4 guy]

Look, MikeyBK, its fine that you don't like noise.

You just need to know that, after the film is shot, if its noisy, there isn't any way for the studios to fix it without making it worse then it was. The same thing applies to blurriness, they aren't capable of fixing it once it has happened, the best we can hope for is that they do a competent job throughout, and don't mess with anything too much.

I think everyone would love it if they shot everything on 70mm imax film, had kodak scan it in at 8k/16bit, and downsampled with a high quality interpolater to HD, that would look amazing. However, its extremely expensive, and many film makers like the 35mm look, film has a lot of history, and film grain has always been a part of it.

[2Bdecided]

I think everyone would love it if they shot everything on 70mm imax film, had kodak scan it in at 8k/16bit, and downsampled with a high quality interpolater to HD, that would look amazing. However, its extremely expensive, and many film makers like the 35mm look, film has a lot of history, and film grain has always been a part of it.I wonder for how long though. If you shoot on digital, you have to add it. There will be digital-shot films where people choose to add grain, but there will also be plenty of films where they choose not to, delivering a clean look. If people generally dislike high grain from typical/poor 35mm on HD, it can only push film makers towards digital acquisition, whatever "purists" think.

Cheers,
David.

[thetoof]

So why is it that the other Blurays I mentioned can maintain that sharpness throughout?
Another example, on the Bluray Wanted, the movie itself has a slight grainyness to it, but on the interview extras it's as crisp as can be.... please let me know why that is?... because it was the filmmakers intent?
Different filming conditions, different contexts, different artistic intents, different techniques, different reels, different cameras and so on... so different Blu-Rays (or scenes).
We've seen (and corrected) so many screwed up footage due to some failed attempts by the production houses at improving the visual quality of their movie that you can just hope that they deliver the most faithful encode of the master. Then, if you don't like it, feel free to ajust it. Asking that they should aim for a clean and uber sharp BD at all cost implies that you are willingly accepting the possibility that they could lose detail + smooth the image by over-denoising, introduce halos by over-sharpening and so on...

[NerdWithNoLife]

With the limited size of DVD, a sharp picture with grain isn't always ideal, since it is tougher on compression. Thankfully with BluRay, the grain (and sharpness) has a chance of making it through without wasting too many bits and trashing the overall quality, since the discs are larger. Plus AVC is an option, instead of just MPEG2. So perhaps some studios are still going by old school techniques, because "it worked before!" I'm still waiting for Moore's law to make HD H.264 encoding/decoding a breeze though...

[Blue_MiSfit]

I wonder for how long though. If you shoot on digital, you have to add it. There will be digital-shot films where people choose to add grain, but there will also be plenty of films where they choose not to, delivering a clean look. If people generally dislike high grain from typical/poor 35mm on HD, it can only push film makers towards digital acquisition, whatever "purists" think.

Cheers,
David.


Digital still has "grain". Sure, it's sensor noise, but take the RED for example. Even with a 4k sensor, near lossless RAW output, great lighting, and a top notch prime lens, there will still be some noise.

In low light, that noise becomes more apparent. It's the same thing is grain, even if it looks a bit different.

~MiSfit

[sumawo13]

I'm still waiting for Moore's law to make HD H.264 encoding/decoding a breeze though...

I feel you. Reencoding The Dark Knight BD at 2FPS on a Q6600 and 2GB of RAM is agonizing. And that's resized to 1280x720! I share your hope that encoding and decoding becomes faster. Real-time would be nice. :D

[Soulhunter]

Digital still has "grain". Sure, it's sensor noise, but take the RED for example. Even with a 4k sensor, near lossless RAW output, great lighting, and a top notch prime lens, there will still be some noise.

In low light, that noise becomes more apparent. It's the same thing is grain, even if it looks a bit different.

~MiSfit
Exactly! CCD (or other sensor) noise has a lot in common with film grain... similar appearance, similar situations that cause it (shooting in low light conditions -> having to use higher ISO speed -> sensor sensitivity gets raised / faster "more sensitive" film material is used-> more noise) ...and often its not necessary that much less in amount. Noise is everywhere, we have to live with it... Hell, even the human eye introduces noise to the image we see, you can notice it best when its dark (because the eyes sensitivity gets raised when its dark in a similar way as CDD sensors etc.). I can clearly see a faint layer of temporal blueish noise in complete darkness, lol! o_O