Video Asylum

TVs, VCRs, DVD players, Home Theater systems and more.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Blu-ray makes everything look like a cartoon?

Posted by Cosmic Closet on June 5, 2009 at 08:28:21:
Keep several variables in mind:
LCD vs. Plasma.
Film origination vs. Digital production origination.
Customer misguidedness about the above point.
(For reference, I work in broadcast TV, and I was a 35mm film projectionist for a summer, back in the day; I still have 16mm at home.)
I bought a Panasonic 58-inch plasma, which I choose because of the better black levels, overall look, and lack of any motion-correcting gizmos. I run a PS3 for Blu-Rays through HDMI.
It produces a very faithful, film-like look (when the source is right.) I had originally thought I would buy an LCD, but I never could find one that looked as good as my plasma.
In production now, many "films" are shot on Red Ones, Panavision Genesis rigs and similar digital cameras with no film involved. Between that development, the visual influence of TV, and the fact that so many don't remember or haven't seen the classic films, there is now this misguided idea that "films, old or new, should not have grain".
The new video-originated movies obviously won't have film grain, but anything that is done on fine-quality 35mm will have a look all its own...if it is left alone. And it is usually not.
So, with DVD/BR re-issues, enter Digital Noise Removal, a.k.a. "the thing that way too often makes film stocks look like some strange kind of video because it removes any semblence of film texture." "Patton" and "The Gangs of New York" have been heavily criticized for this kind of mutilation.
This technique, combined with the so-called internet movie reviewers who seem to think that a good selling point for a film is that "you can't see the grain", make for some very ugly and unnatural-looking transfers.
Now, you combine all of that with the fact that when Joe Sixpack wanders in to be impressed with High Definition in a store, he will usually see:
A Pixar digital cartoon or a new, digitally originated movie (or DNR-processed one) run on a set that has been turned up to 11 in terms of brightness and contrast and color, just to gang-rape the eyeballs of anyone coming past.
Do you think he would be impressed with "The Third Man" or "Citizen Kane"? (Apart from being in that ugly B/W, they have one other major flaw: they don't fill the screen......)
Do you think he would re-set the controls on his LCD once he gets it home? I wonder what the odds are, in terms of how many actually bother vs. the number of sets sold.
So, to sum up, you are right about bad transfers. The studios, being weak for the dollar as opposed to for the quality, will do what they do to some of the films unless enough people scream bloody murder or, better yet, simply don't buy.
It's a pity that a delivery format of high quality, such as Blu-Ray, has to be sacrificed from time to time, on the altar of 'the TV look.'
CC.