Comments for Movie Renter's Guide - June, 2008 at http://www.hometheaterhifi.com , comment 1 to 5 out of 5 comments http://www.hometheaterhifi.com Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:53:35 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/media-music-movies-etc/43-movie-reviews/365-secrets-movie-reviews.html#comment-811 I'm not sure where the "master frame" came from in the AVS post. I don't think it is a mock-up. But I know the poster is a Microsoft insider and he also showed here how adding random noise can improve perceived sharpness http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13912316&highlight=xylon#post13912316 And here he offered a writeup about dither/random noise http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=960826 - HD Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:30:09 +0100 http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/media-music-movies-etc/43-movie-reviews/365-secrets-movie-reviews.html#comment-807 I was able to pretty much duplicate the "master frame" by doing a screen copy of the Blu-ray screen shot shown by the other reader and then simply applying some sharpening and random noise. In other words, I was able to take the screen shot and go back to the "master frame". I can send it to you for posting at AVS if you like. I am not a member. Perhaps someone is just playing a little joke there. In any case, I think that fine film grain from a 70mm movie is probably beyond the resolution of 1920x1080 high def TV. - JEJ Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:24:36 +0100 http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/media-music-movies-etc/43-movie-reviews/365-secrets-movie-reviews.html#comment-806 "Film grain is not visible in Patton..." But it should be. Here you can see the master frame and what cleanup it underwent... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14042247#post14042247 - HD Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:38:30 +0100 http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/media-music-movies-etc/43-movie-reviews/365-secrets-movie-reviews.html#comment-785 Film grain is not visible in Patton because the movie was shot in 70mm, which means the film space was much larger than a movie shot on the standard 35mm film space. It has a super clean look to it because it is super clean in the first place. That is the advantage of 70mm. I am surprised the film critics made that error. If they want film grain so that it looks "film like", maybe they should watch movies shot on 16mm film. They will see film grain galore. As to The Longest Day, I was more cognizant of the excessive contrast in some scenes than any "scrubbing". Film grain depends on the ISO of the film itself, and TLD may have used fine grain black & white film. - JEJ Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:09:25 +0100 http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/media-music-movies-etc/43-movie-reviews/365-secrets-movie-reviews.html#comment-784 Just curious. I've come across a few reviews of these films and both TLD and Patton have been singled out for criticism as having had too much DNR applied (natural film grain is gone and high frequency information is scrubbed out along with it--the result is a hyper-clean image but not a film-like one). That is according to the reviews. They are in the minority, however, as most reviews have praised the look of these releases. I'm just wondering if the critics are being unrealistic in their expectations or if the general public prefers "hyper-clean" to "film-like". Incidentally, one of the critics (who still recommends the films as they are good, but finds they are not "film-like" in their presentation) is Robert A. Harris--a noted film preservationist who helped restore, among others, Spartacus and Lawrence of Arabia. Thoughts? - Ovation Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:28:36 +0100