 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
97.124.31.86
Every now and then I'll see a blu-ray at a store. Sometimes I'm really impressed. Thats when watching animated movies like 'Kung Fu Panda'.
But when I watch real, filmed scenes with actual actors....it looks odd to me. The lighting is often too bright, you can see the makeup on people. Scenes look like they take place on sets. Short version...does NOT look like film.
For example, I was watching U-571 yesterday at BB, and it looked nothing like what I saw in the theater.
Is this bad digital transfers or is the blu-ray technology just basically not appropriate to playing film? I know it was never intended for home use. When the dvd forum created the hd-dvd standard Sony took a Japanese professional recorder and beat on it until they created, wait for it..'blu-ray'!
I like my movies to look like movies. Like film. Not like oversaturated cartoons.
Anyone else notice this?
Follow Ups:
Do you expect Best Lie to calibrate the display? I think not..........
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.
Edits: 06/05/09 06/05/09
.
Mein Gott!
Vista Ultimate 32bit/Diamond XS Dac/ Sterovox coaxial line in to Insignia Amp/Cambridge SoundWorks& Infinity RS 1001 Speakers
:-)
-Wendell
The Kuro is getting more "watching time" than the huge-ass projector screen lately. It does not help when the FP bulb is starting to "fade" ($$$$); I may have to take "corrective action" soon....
How many hours do you have on yours? Mine is cornering at 1200 hours and it’s still going strong. Sharp claimed that the bulb will last at least 2000 hours, I hope that I will get the chance to see it.If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Edits: 06/02/09
The first failed at less than a 1000 hours (no guarantees), the 2nd started to dim at about 1900 hrs so I went ahead and replaced it; It may still have some "life" as an emergency replacement. I'm at 1700 hours on the third bulb so another decision point is coming soon (new bulb or new FP?).
I think the Sharp automatically cuts out at 2000 hrs; you still have to reset the timer if your bulb hits the 2000 hr mark.
I'm milking the life out of the FP, it's just getting harder to hold off getting a new one. This FP looks so dim (even with light control) in comparison after watching sessions with the Kuro.
I saw the same thing after watching the movie in the FP and then watch my plasma upstairs for some sports updates. Definitely, the plasma is brighter in comparison, but what do you expect the Sharp FP only puts out 1200 ANSI Lumens on a high contrast setting. Like you I’ve been thinking the same way of replacing the Sharp, as the matter of fact I’ve auditioned a brand new 1080p FP made by JVC and you know what, the difference between the Sharp and the new JVC wasn’t very much regarding the resolution, although the JVC was brighter overall. I will keep watching it until it dies and then I will have some hard decision to do.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
maybe when I've accumulated cash-in-hand for the FP, I'll spring for one. Gotta get a SOTA Blu-ray player as well.
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
That's how the manufacturers want them displayed so they pop out to the customer walking by. 99% of buyers aren't videophiles. When the economy improves the sales will jump again.
-Wendell
mbnx01,
No, Blu Ray has nothing whatsoever to do with the "cartoon" impression you are getting when you see it in the stores.
A lot of people have seen Blu Ray demos in stores and found the image to have a sort of odd, too-sharp, strangely too-real look, where movies don't really look like movies anymore.
Here is what is happening. Most of the time these days Blu Rays are demonstrated on new LCD flat panels. Many of the new LCD flat panels have a feature that reduces motion blur (LCDs have had a history of having more blur with fast motion than plasma, so LCD makers have tried to come up with solutions).
It goes by various names depending on the manufacturer of the set, but it's mostly known to AV-types as "Frame Interpolation" which is a fairly accurate description of what it does. Basically, it's a feature that looks at two frames of movement (which will have blur) and it creates a "new" frame in between, sort of a guess/mix of both frames, so the part of the motion that was "missing" (not captured by the camera) is placed in there. The effect is to reduce the effect of the blurred motion - edges even when in movement look very crisp.
This does indeed clear up and sharpen the look of the picture. We are very used to seeing a lot more blur with movement, especially in movies captured at 24 frames per second in movie film. So the big complaint with this process - and I agree heartily - is that it tends to make the image look oddly sharp, clear that for movies at least doesn't make it look like film. It makes it look like super-sharp HD video, and as such, at the same time as the image looks more impressive in sharpness/motion, it tends to give a sort of "cheap, video" look to film. Almost like you are watching those behind-the-scenes extras on a DVD shot in video, rather than the film itself.
Exacerbating this effect is how most LCDs are set up with terrible picture settings, pumping up the contrast and color unnaturally.
So none of this is an inherent characteristic of Blu Ray - it's the displays on which it is being shown.
Since Blu Ray actually captures film information more smoothly, less coarse than SD DVD, when you watch it properly displayed it actually looks LESS cartoony and more like real film than anything we've had up to this point. (At least if the transfer is good).
I swear, these new displays using frame interpolation to show Blu Rays have caused so many "I think Blu Ray looks weird" comments from unsuspecting consumers that I've lost count. But...that's the AV retail environment for you. Not always it's own best friend.
Cheers,
Rich H
has also been to turn the sharpness down to almost minimum. In doing so remember that the set normally takes about 30 minutes to stabilize., but the lower sharpness setting reduces that edge enhancement, particularly at color boundaries. which is largely responsible for that cartoonish effect where it seems that the color boundaries have a penciled in border.
In reducing the sharpness you will find that the color saturation in a field becomes more saturated with better gradation.
The problem is often seen when viewing something like a referee's black and white striped shirt.In a close up you often seen the black edge of the stripe sharply delineated but then it turns gray and then black in the middle of the stripe and then gray as you move to the other edge.
Adjusting the sharpness radically lower has helped in most of the displays I have seen
Stu
"Night of the Museum" looked too much like one video superimposed over a different video. Of course, one could argue that maybe that was exactly how the film was put together and the Samsung was too revealing of the flaws in the source.
Edits: 06/01/09
"Of course, one could argue that maybe that was exactly how the film was put together and the Samsung was too revealing of the flaws in the source."
Well your argument would be a weak one, I assume you're kidding. I own two recent Samsung LCD TVs and when you use too much motion control you get that odd "video" look. The key to using the feature is to dial in enough to clear up motion as much as possible while not introducing the videoish effect. It's done easily enough.
A friends BD into his 120Hz Samsung to me looks cartoonish, but a BD on my old X1 PJ looks fine. Yes, maybe he could play with his settings, but he's thrilled and not a techy guy, so I'm not going to muddy his waters.
I think you're seeing display and/or setting issues more than anything.
What I see with live action (not animated movies, which look AMAZING on blu-ray) is pretty consistent. People look like they are on a set, with lighting (and lots of it). It's like I'm in the studio watching it being filmed, in stead of watching film.
The first time I saw a blu-ray clip from one of the Spiderman movies I couldn't get over how NOT LIKE FILM it looked.
I'm not sure this can be attributed to 'bad tv setup at the store', but maybe. I doubt I'll know till I try a blu-ray at home. I doubt that will be for many years.
As noted by others below, stores will pump things up to bring buyers in. If your consistant cartoon experience is only in stores and/or only with LCD's then I'll say what I said before; it's quite likely the setup (basically all stores do this) or the TV. I'm not saying BD maybe doesn't have some part at fault, but on a decent and properly set up (not a store trying to attract buyers) display you may feel otherwise.
I've always found LCD's to have cartoonish pictures. The higher Hz units to my eyes are even more so. Try a BD on a PJ, plasma or CRT and I think you MAY see things differently.
"...at a store." That's the key. You're seeing TVs that are set to "vivid" or "Sports" mode; i.e. maximum brightness and maximum color saturation. Of course it makes everything look like a cartoon!
This is in no way the fault of the format.
... at the expense of drab-looking Plasmas which don't fare so well in the bright lights.Wow the buying public with vivid/bright displays; it is a tactic which sells TVs. Too bad such tactics are helping to kill off the Plasma TV industry.
I prefer film mode to "cartoon" mode but I think I'm in the minority.
Edits: 05/28/09 05/28/09
LCDs have a lot of ergonomic advantages over plasma. I have a few, but they are all for non-critical viewing, because that's all they are good for. I have yet to see an LCD TV that has accurate colors, and the artifacts drive me crazy when I'm trying to get "drawn in" to a movie.
Unfortunately most people seem to prefer their TV pictures to be ultra-bright and more colorful than real life. It's really too bad. Guess I should buy a newer plasma to replace my aging Loewe plasma bedroom TV before the technology is completely gone.
Even some of the better LCD screens appear "pasty" to me compared to plasma. The plasma sets also appear to have depth while many LCDs seem flat. Additionally, as you move slightly off axis vs head-on with an LCD screen, the image seems to change slightly and gets worse the more off axis you go. I don't notice this at all with plasma.
All the hot new tv technologies we were promised three years ago? Laser-lcd's and organic led's and all that stuff.
Hell, Sony doesn't even make lcd-projectors anymore. That's a tech I far prefer to lcd.
If you don't like lcd tv's these days you're going to have trouble finding a tv.
I bought a 46" Sony lcd about a year ago. Turned it on....gee, what's that funny stuff on the screen. Yup. Clouding. Sony said they could 'adjust' the set, but couldn't fix it. It went back.
I really love my 50" Panasonic plasma. I really want to like LCD too, but I have never seen one that can equal the plasma for accurate colors. I had better grab the Panasonic 58" soon, if the plasma industry is going to dissappear.
No, just you. :-)
-Wendell
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
