A short MUST read for anyone with HDTV or Blu-Ray

[Craig]

Posted: 5/22/08 at 10:33am

http://gizmodo.com/392663/hollywood-attacking-film-grain-for-blu+ray

[Roscoe]

Posted: 5/22/08 at 11:45am

That grain can be a mixed blessing. SOPHIE'S CHOICE was on one of the HD cable channels recently, and it was very disturbing to see all of that grain all over the place. I have no doubt that it was all carefully planned, as SOPHIE'S CHOICE was shot by the great cinematographer Nestor Almendros. I've just gotten very used to such absolute clarity in the TV image.

[Luscious]

Posted: 5/22/08 at 11:56am

I love my Playstation 3 and I love watching certain movies in HD, but I have no intention of replacing my older movies on standard DVD with new Blu-ray versions. I really don't see the point. Current movies, especially those created from a digital source, look best in HD. Anything pre-CGI, in my opinion, isn't worth replacing. Although, admittedly, I'm curious to see what they'll be able do with movies like The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind.

[Craig]

Posted: 5/22/08 at 12:06pm

I had to adjust my "thinking" and eye. Even the newer movies with amazing transfers can and do have film grain. It's intentional. And one (I think) automatically believes that since you're watching HDTV, that everything should be crystal clear. Images are sharp as hell - but it's not mutually exclusive. You can have amazing image quality AND film grain. One only has to look at a dvd release (not upscaled) vs a blu-ray. And there is a noticable difference between an upscaled and blu-ray as well.

Like you Luscious - I don't see a reason to re-buy a ton of my dvds (many of which aren't available anyway). There are also movies that just don't NEED to be seen in high def. Do you REALLY need to see JUNO in high def? All the PIXAR movies - without question - but comedies and such?

Unless there's amazing visuals or the blu-ray has bonus content that I can't live without, I won't be replacing my collection.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/22/08 at 12:24pm

I have always wondered what would happen when people started to realize that 35mm resolution would be surpassed. Most films are shot on 35mm and are are not HD, they are just transfered to HD from the 35mm source. No matter how good the scans are of this source it is NEVER going to compete with something recorded in a higher definition format.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/22/08 at 4:58pm

I echo what mejust said---And what most people don't realize is that that their HD televisions show WAY more information and detail than a film projected at your local movie theatre.

Compare a film at the cineplex to one on your fancy HD 1080p player, and you'll see a huge difference in resolution and detail. I think our expectations are too high now of what can and should be done to film transfers.

I for one don't like counting the pores on someone's face, when I couldn't and didn't see that in the theatre. It starts to make everything look "enhanced" or even CG, like a video game.

And I like my SD DVD upconversions for this very reason. They look more like a projected film on my HDTV than a true HD disc or broadcast does.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/22/08 at 5:10pm

That's also another interesting point film is "projected". It may not seem like much a difference but that experience is not easily replicated in the home. The way film is projected, a light passes through film and it goes out over a dark space and onto a screen is not happening in most homes. Also when film is being shot a lot of aesthetic consideration is taken into account for that theater experience (or at least in the past it has been). It's not shot for television sets so this jump to HD is bumpy at best. I'm interested in seeing how these new 3D films translate to video release. I saw Beowulf and it was just terrible on the small screen.