|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: I want my fake film grain!
|
Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!
Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 07-08-2006 08:03 PM
Skinamarink-a-linky-link
quote:
Thomson's film grain for HD DVD: if you can't play it, fake it
With all this crazy money being spent on rolling out new standards like HD DVD and Blu-ray, you'd think at least they'd be able to manage that 1080p res they're soaking you for, right? Well, sort of. HD DVD runs at about 10-15Mbps, compared to SD-res bitrates of around 8-10Mbps. That means a whole lot of compression is going on, and some of that film grain that you're paying for with such high resolutions is getting lost in the process. Now Thomson is stepping in with a solution to reintroduce that grain, by simulating it in the actual player as a visual effect on the image. Sounds pretty cheesy to us, since the whole point of seeing film grain is for the subtle nuance of it, not for the mere effect of distorted picture. It does sound like they have some algorithm in place to pickup the actual patterns of noise during compression, so that the final representation has at least a semblance to the original, but it sounds like true film grain purists are going to have to stick with movie theaters for their fix for now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler
Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 07-09-2006 05:59 AM
Joe: over the air HD is MPEG-2, and while HD-DVD supports that, most discs typically use something more advanced, like VC-1 or H.264.
To see what H.264 can do, check out some of the videos here:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/hdgallery
Take a look at the bitrates in the info window in Quicktime Player, and I think you might be surprised. For example, the 1080p Batman Begins trailer has a data rate of only around 8-9 mbit/sec, but it looks much better than MPEG-2 could ever hope to look at twice or even three times that bitrate.
With modern codecs, it is possible to encode high quality video at surprisingly low bitrates.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-10-2006 06:21 PM
quote: Frank Angel
So for all their pissing on film, these vidiots deep down, desperately want their crappy video to LOOK like film. If digital video is all that, then why do they keep insisting that they can get it to look as good as film?
That's one of the wierd double standards in the video versus film that I've been critical about for a long time.
Honestly, I think it is really fucking retarded to shoot a major movie production in HD video and then do a bunch of post processsing shit to it to fake out a film look. 99% of the time the results are not convincing at all and work to only degrade the quality of the video image further.
Sin City and the last two Star Wars prequels are only video-originated movies I've seen so far that have featured a reasonably good film look. I haven't seen the new Superman movie yet.
Most other video-originated movies still reveal their video-sourced origins well after the film-look post processing. Collateral had pretty decent image sharpness, but it was easy to tell the difference between the shots that were made on film versus those made with HD cameras. The clips I've seen thus far for Miami Vice look the same.
With many of these video-originated movies, I can't help but wonder how much better the movie would look if that pretentious film-look step was not thrown into the mix.
Really, if shooting on digital video is so great, then why not leave the video looking like video?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Greenlee
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 801
From: Savannah, Ga, U.S.
Registered: Jun 2006
|
posted 07-11-2006 02:00 AM
Digitally adding in inperfections? Only time I can see that as logical is for simulating antique photos. You know, the ones at the novelty booths in theme parks and tourist traps. Give me film anyday, as long as you keep it in good shape, it'll kick the pants off any digital projector. And the imperfections that are in it, are earned. Gives it character. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Besides, last I checked, digital didn't do so good in uber large screens. Even where 35mm loses res, 70mm, and the IMAX format still hold up strong. Of course, if the poduction quality sucks, or the post-production, film or digital, with suck no matter what. I say it's a huge statment if Digital cinema feels the need to imitate film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-11-2006 05:15 AM
quote:
Wow, Frank. I'm shocked you'd even admit that these film-related problems even exist!
Yes, Manny, I do admit it...only not in my theatres. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But seriously, unlike the digital zealots, I don't piss on digital the way they piss on film and dismiss it as if the greatest works of cinema in the past century just couldn't be truly appreciated because of all those flaws in film. I know digital is going to have its place (only it will be BESIDE film rather than INSTEAD of film for decades to come) and I have ALWAYS embraced new technology....I certainly am not a reactionary. But my main and strenuous objection isn't to the technology but the way digital is constantly being politicized. My objection is that they are trotting out a technology that is demonstrably INFERIOR to the excisting film technology, and even that wouldn't be so bad because technologies evolve. But with this particular technology, because of its cost and all the other political pressures from the MPAA side, the door is pretty much going to slam on future evolution of the technology.
Consider, if enough chains borrow enough billon dollar loans and install digital on the majority of their screens, what are the chances that they will ever recoup that investment and then be ready to invest yet again in say, 4K or 8K projectors or whatever the next evolutionary step that might come along? Very unlikely given they've alreay purchased a billon dollars worth of 2K hardware. And that in turn, limits the potential buyers for newer, better digital next generations which will pretty much put a halt to R&D on the technology which just might be BETTER than film.....I mean REALLY better.
The really danger I see is that because of corporate greed, we will become locked into a digital delivery system that already is half what some R&D has already advanced to, and you can bet that those 13,000 screens won't be crying to buy whatever new and improved digital projector is being "rolled out."
I have always stated, if some company came to me and said they had a new technology that would let me present LAWRENCE OF ARABIA to new generations of audiences with digital technology and it would let me give my audiences the same visual experience that I had when saw it when it was first released on 70mm....I wouldn't care if they used kriptonetic crystals to carry the image information, I would be the first in line to install it.
But 2K digital sure aint that.
And if I hear one of these digi-hucksters saying just one more time how 2K is going to give the audience a better experience than film (like the guys at TI's goal ever was to give audiences a better movie experience than film with their first gen 1.3K DLP chips that they hoisted on those idiot exhibitors who bought them)....I swear I am going to accidently drop a 70mm reel of LOA on his big toe.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Greenlee
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 801
From: Savannah, Ga, U.S.
Registered: Jun 2006
|
posted 07-11-2006 06:49 PM
I look at digital as a little sibling. Its there, you didn't want it, but you have to deal with the little brat. However, in spite of it's annoyance, you realise that one day it will come into it's own and flourish. Even now, you realize that there is some areas where it excels at. But for what you want, right now, it's a little brat. I like that digital is out there, and I like that I have that option. I prefer film, and I recognize that film reigns supreme on larger screens. Also the film projectors are pretty indiscriminate on what they're playing. If film technology progresses, guess what, the next print you get will have the new technology and still play on your current equipment. There are a few exceptions, cyan dye tracks, but that's easily solved by changing the reader, and not much else. A reverse scan red light reader is how much? Upgrading/replacing your digital projector is how much? Now, there probably are software updates for them that allow for some improvment on the same equipment, but not going from 2k to 4k, which is still lower than film.
I want my real film grain.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic