It is currently Sat Sep 27, 2025 9:37 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 8 posts ] 
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
mhafner
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 8:14 pm
Posts: 1086
Have you ever felt a desire to see a film on the big screen
with DEI/Eros... style DNR? Go see "Seabiscuit".
The morons who did the digital intermediate applied (bad)
DNR from start to finish and boy it shows. With all the
training you got on zulm so far on the issue you will
have no problems at all seeing the problems and you will
be able to lecture the rest of the cinema about the evils
of DNR. :tounge:
Seriously. This development scares me 'shitless'. If that
is being imitated by others we can kiss decent looking
films from DIs goodbye. This must be stopped under all
circumstances. I won't pay 10$ to see such crap.
Top
 Profile  
 
ajy1
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 2:38 pm
Posts: 277
Location: New York
I agree with mhafner completely. Seabiscuit not only was a horrible movie on its own, it looked far worse considering that it went through a "digital intermediate" process. The film looks terribly fakey, like a bad video blowup. I've been starting to notice this lately in film releases, even those that originated on film like this one. It's really a big shame and I hope people realize that this process is a horrible one. Shame shame.
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Why would they do this? Wouldn't the source be pretty clean when they scan the film? If they're going to color correct the film digitally, they might as well try to manually remove any egregious dirt by using previous or subsequent frames if possible.

Did you notice any DNR problems on Matrix Reloaded?



Edited By DragunR2 on 1065482195
Top
 Profile  
 
mhafner
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 8:14 pm
Posts: 1086
ajy1 wrote:
I agree with mhafner completely. Seabiscuit not only was a horrible movie on its own, it looked far worse considering that it went through a "digital intermediate" process. The film looks terribly fakey, like a bad video blowup. I've been starting to notice this lately in film releases, even those that originated on film like this one. It's really a big shame and I hope people realize that this process is a horrible one. Shame shame.

The DI process itself is quite good. The DNR ruined the
look of the film. DI data is better quality than HD
transfers and these already look superb when done properly.
A well done DI projected direct digital on a 2K DLP or
D-ILA projector looks ravishing, better than 99% of all
prints you will ever see.
Top
 Profile  
 
mhafner
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 8:14 pm
Posts: 1086
DragunR2 wrote:
Why would they do this? Wouldn't the source be pretty clean when they scan the film? If they're going to color correct the film digitally, they might as well try to manually remove any egregious dirt by using previous or subsequent frames if possible.

Did you notice any DNR problems on Matrix Reloaded?

Did not check for any on the regular prints, but the IMAX
version had quite some. Apart from that and some EE the
IMAX version is breathtaking.
Top
 Profile  
 
ajy1
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 2:38 pm
Posts: 277
Location: New York
I stand corrected. I've been reading that in order for DLP to really truly compete with film, it must be at least 4K. Would you agree with that statement?
Top
 Profile  
 
Clipper
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 10:13 pm
Posts: 183
check this site for more info

http://www.cinesite.com/la/digital/background.html
Top
 Profile  
 
mhafner
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 8:14 pm
Posts: 1086
ajy1 wrote:
I stand corrected. I've been reading that in order for DLP to really truly compete with film, it must be at least 4K. Would you agree with that statement?

DLP or the digital master? The digital master at 2K is
better than a normal release print. Better prints than 2K
are limited to prints made from the camera negative and
these 99.9% of all people never see. 4K is the equivalent
of the camera negative. So a digital master at 4K looks
better than any prints you can make. Concerning DLP the
more pixels the better upto 4K to create a smoother image
that is at the same time razor sharp. More than 4K makes
little sense under regular viewing conditions in cinemas
and at home. The digital gold standard for 35mm will be
4K in the coming years.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 8 posts ] 

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group