Monday, May 26, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
Quote:
John,
I'm just going to say it...."I think Hd/dvd blows Blu-ray away."
I don't think you've watched enough Blu-ray movies. Either that, or you prefer the plastic Universal DNR kind of transfers that sacrifice detail for noise reduction. Many people do however opt for the trade-off between less detail for less noise or film grain. But that is a studio choice and has nothing to do with the actual format.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Member since:
June 2006
June 2006
Hey Skyhawk... I agree with your boast on that Megan Fox thread - YES, in my opinion you're wife is hotter-looking than Ms Fox! Nice sexy pic. (and I just know she loves Blu-ray too - 
)
EDIT - an no tattoos too (noticeable) in that pic
_____________
-JIMI McLovin (the Voodoo Child)
[Post edited by Love Hendrix! on May 26, 2008]
)EDIT - an no tattoos too (noticeable) in that pic
_____________
-JIMI McLovin (the Voodoo Child)
[Post edited by Love Hendrix! on May 26, 2008]
Monday, May 26, 2008
Member since:
March 2008
March 2008
Hendrix,
You perv....but I gotta come clean here too.....Skyhawk!!! shouldnt you be (ahem) doing something else with your time???
And yes. I will sacrifice minimal detail for a percieved cleaner picture...even though that less detailed picture looks pretty damn detailed to me.
You perv....but I gotta come clean here too.....Skyhawk!!! shouldnt you be (ahem) doing something else with your time???
And yes. I will sacrifice minimal detail for a percieved cleaner picture...even though that less detailed picture looks pretty damn detailed to me.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Sky,
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was a lack of grain that caused many digitally shot movies to look flat--it's a combination of things.
As for digital photography having more grain than print sources, we may be talking about two different things. I'm referring to motion pictures shot digitally under ideal lighting conditions on professional-grade equipment like the Panavision Genesis HD camera, not a consumer-grade video camera.
Now, about digital grain and noise, here's a nice summary of the subject from Wikipedia:
"Film has a characteristic grain structure, which many people view positively, either for aesthetic reasons or because it has become associated with the look of 'real' movies. Different film stocks have different grain, and cinematographers may use this for artistic effect.
Digitally acquired footage lacks this grain structure. Electronic noise is sometimes visible in digitally acquired footage, particularly in dark areas of an image or when footage was shot in low lighting conditions and gain was used. Some people believe such noise is a workable aesthetic substitute for film grain, while others believe it has a harsher look that detracts from the image. Well shot, well lit images from high-end digital cinematography cameras can look almost eerily clean. Some people believe this makes them look "plasticky" or computer generated, while others find it to be an interesting new look, and argue that film grain can be emulated in post-production if desired.
Since most theatrical exhibition still occurs via film prints, the super-clean look of digital acquisition is often lost before moviegoers get to see it, because of the grain in the film stock of the release print."
John
[Post edited by John J. Puccio on May 27, 2008]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was a lack of grain that caused many digitally shot movies to look flat--it's a combination of things.
As for digital photography having more grain than print sources, we may be talking about two different things. I'm referring to motion pictures shot digitally under ideal lighting conditions on professional-grade equipment like the Panavision Genesis HD camera, not a consumer-grade video camera.
Now, about digital grain and noise, here's a nice summary of the subject from Wikipedia:
"Film has a characteristic grain structure, which many people view positively, either for aesthetic reasons or because it has become associated with the look of 'real' movies. Different film stocks have different grain, and cinematographers may use this for artistic effect.
Digitally acquired footage lacks this grain structure. Electronic noise is sometimes visible in digitally acquired footage, particularly in dark areas of an image or when footage was shot in low lighting conditions and gain was used. Some people believe such noise is a workable aesthetic substitute for film grain, while others believe it has a harsher look that detracts from the image. Well shot, well lit images from high-end digital cinematography cameras can look almost eerily clean. Some people believe this makes them look "plasticky" or computer generated, while others find it to be an interesting new look, and argue that film grain can be emulated in post-production if desired.
Since most theatrical exhibition still occurs via film prints, the super-clean look of digital acquisition is often lost before moviegoers get to see it, because of the grain in the film stock of the release print."
John
[Post edited by John J. Puccio on May 27, 2008]
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
John: It was the comparable "badly" lit situations I was referring to when talking about digital video clipping dynamic range in the shadows to keep noise at respectable levels. I wont get into a digital versus film debate - we all know that film's lifespan is numbered. My point was that in HD movies, the noise seen is not necessarily film grain, and fine grain can be eliminated by downsizing (as I demonstrated).
Hendrix: Tatoos aren't really acceptable in Asian culture - unless you're a Korean gang member! But times are changing, even there. I don't think my wife and I will be getting tatoos anytime soon - we're kind of past that age (wife is turning 40, and I'm already planning the party!).
Hendrix: Tatoos aren't really acceptable in Asian culture - unless you're a Korean gang member!
But times are changing, even there. I don't think my wife and I will be getting tatoos anytime soon - we're kind of past that age (wife is turning 40, and I'm already planning the party!).
