Is it just me or do others find blu ray grainy, I just watched Close Encounters and found the picture very grainy most notably the blue sky. Is this my player or because it's an old film, I have some new discs mainly concerts and don't see the same graininess.
grainy blu ray
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
It's the movie - and not because it's an old film (i've got far older films that look spotless on Blu-ray), but a poorly transferred one. Probably one of the most disappointing Blu-rays i've seen -just glad I hired it from Lovefilm rather than bought it!
Thanks for that, I thought I had set up incorrectly. Is there a Blu Ray picture quality review site out there, I don't want to waste any more cash.
Look out for our reviews in-mag (10 Blu-rays every issue!) and here on Leisure Lab, which always describe both picture and sound quality.
And if we haven't covered something you're considering purchasing, put a query up here - there's a vast crowd of us viewing discs every day, so i'm sure you'll get pre-purchase feedback.
And if we haven't covered something you're considering purchasing, put a query up here - there's a vast crowd of us viewing discs every day, so i'm sure you'll get pre-purchase feedback.
ElectroMan
Well-known member
A poor transfer makes sense, but I can't understand why my copy of 300 looks so grainy? I bought myself a play station 3 with a free copy of 300, followed the BD settings guide from ign.com, but was surprised at the pq.
Upscaled dvd's look grainy up close, but from my seating position look excellent. The BD film 300 however looks grainy in the background, and is noticeable up close. It's put me off bluray a bit, but I wonder if it's down to settings? My TV is a Sony 40" W4500
Upscaled dvd's look grainy up close, but from my seating position look excellent. The BD film 300 however looks grainy in the background, and is noticeable up close. It's put me off bluray a bit, but I wonder if it's down to settings? My TV is a Sony 40" W4500
If I remember correctly, what bit of 300 I saw on Sky HD was grainy - it's just the way it's filmed/meant to look
Clare Newsome:It's the movie - and not because it's an old film (i've got far older films that look spotless on Blu-ray), but a poorly transferred one. Probably one of the most disappointing Blu-rays i've seen -just glad I hired it from Lovefilm rather than bought it!
Just because it has grain, it doesn't mean it's a bad picture! Film is comprised of grain! The disc has received universally positive video ratings from all of the major hi-def review sites (don't think I've seen less than an 8/10) and it looks very nice indeed to my eyes. There are many factors that affect the amount of grain in an image, not least of which are the film stock used and the lighting. Are you advocating that studios DNR the hell out of their films, thus eradicating visible grain and therefore removing image detail? Not all films are supposed to look like Pixar animation! Close Encounters is an accurate transfer, which is what Blu-ray is meant to provide.
As for 300, it looks grainy because Zack Snyder decided to add the grain artificially to give it a grittier, comic book feel (in much the same way as he desaturated the image). If you have the HD DVD version you can watch the PiP commentary track that shows the blue-screen version of the film in a separate window at the bottom, allowing you see the differences between the raw and processed images. The feature isn't on the Blu-ray release, most likely because it predates the mass availability of Profile 1.1 machines and Warner weren't very forward-thinking back then.
Just because it has grain, it doesn't mean it's a bad picture! Film is comprised of grain! The disc has received universally positive video ratings from all of the major hi-def review sites (don't think I've seen less than an 8/10) and it looks very nice indeed to my eyes. There are many factors that affect the amount of grain in an image, not least of which are the film stock used and the lighting. Are you advocating that studios DNR the hell out of their films, thus eradicating visible grain and therefore removing image detail? Not all films are supposed to look like Pixar animation! Close Encounters is an accurate transfer, which is what Blu-ray is meant to provide.
As for 300, it looks grainy because Zack Snyder decided to add the grain artificially to give it a grittier, comic book feel (in much the same way as he desaturated the image). If you have the HD DVD version you can watch the PiP commentary track that shows the blue-screen version of the film in a separate window at the bottom, allowing you see the differences between the raw and processed images. The feature isn't on the Blu-ray release, most likely because it predates the mass availability of Profile 1.1 machines and Warner weren't very forward-thinking back then.
Yes, I know what film grain is (and have got a degree to prove it
), but I can't agree that Close Encounters is a satisfactory watch: there's a big difference between deliberate grain and low-quality stock and/or transfer, and IMO in this case it's the latter. The speed in which it came out - without a full remaster - suggests a better job could (and should) have been done on this Blu-ray. Doubtless an 'ultimate edition' may appear in time....
And as you'll see from all our set-up advice on this site re TVs etc, we're no fans of DNR - we advocate switching it off!
And as you'll see from all our set-up advice on this site re TVs etc, we're no fans of DNR - we advocate switching it off!
I've no doubt there will be another version at some point (certainly if studios follow the DVD business model), but what would you be looking for them to improve upon in a remastered edition? I concede that there is room for improvement with things like film artefacts, but CE3K is always going to be grainy and slightly soft-focussed because of the way it was shot (anamorphic with low light levels). You can't switch DNR off if it's done at the source level, so there's no way that should be part of any restoration. I still contend that the Blu-ray is an accurate representation of the film and most certainly not a poor transfer (I can't believe every HD review site got it wrong). Gangs of New York is a poor transfer. House of Flying Daggers is a poor transfer. There will always be room for improvement with any film as technology evolves to include better compression algorithms etc, but for right now it's a pretty decent effort for a thirty-year-old film. It might not be to everyone's liking, but that's a different kettle of fish.
So you concede there are film artefacts but still think it deserves great reviews? Sorry, but if it's a pricey Blu-ray I expect a degree of restoration and remastering to have taken place. The Bond films, Zulu etc - no problem there....ÿ
Oh, and I was referring to DNR on TVs - which, when heaped on potentially already 'treated' sources, can cause on-screen noise.
Oh, and I was referring to DNR on TVs - which, when heaped on potentially already 'treated' sources, can cause on-screen noise.
He is right though there are quite a few sights saying its a great disk and a must have, and picture quality is given as high.
Of course there are film artefacts (albeit minimal ones that you have to go looking for) on a thirty year old film that hasn't undergone full restoration, but calling the transfer 'poor' based solely on that fact is overcooking it somewhat. If it was a six month old film with pristine elements and there were film artefacts (which there were on The Dark Knight, a transfer that you recently referred to as reference quality), there would be a stronger case to argue. There are also artefacts on the Bond BDs if you look hard enough for them. There are minimal artefacts on the Godfather Blu-rays, and they have gone through a thorough restoration process.
The reason I'm making a big deal about this is that you're the editor-in-chief of a home cinema magazine and presumably carry some weight with the people who read these forums. Your comments about it being a 'poor' transfer could very well sway fans of the film into avoiding what is actually a very competent effort from a technical standpoint. I'm not denying that there's room for improvement - there always is - but your assertion that it is a poor transfer flies in the face of my own eyesight and every single review I've read on other sites.
I know you were referring to DNR on TVs; I was talking about DNR at the source given your comments about restoration, in order to ascertain whether you were advocating the reduction of grain on future releases of CE3K.
The reason I'm making a big deal about this is that you're the editor-in-chief of a home cinema magazine and presumably carry some weight with the people who read these forums. Your comments about it being a 'poor' transfer could very well sway fans of the film into avoiding what is actually a very competent effort from a technical standpoint. I'm not denying that there's room for improvement - there always is - but your assertion that it is a poor transfer flies in the face of my own eyesight and every single review I've read on other sites.
I know you were referring to DNR on TVs; I was talking about DNR at the source given your comments about restoration, in order to ascertain whether you were advocating the reduction of grain on future releases of CE3K.
But i've been reviewing discs for at least as long (and in several cases much longer) than the reviewers on those other sites (I was editor of DVD Magazine in 2000), so why should my opinion not be as valid? A lot of those reviews mention, as you do, that the transfer is a 'competent' effort, but that's not the same as 'superb' or 'excellent' - which is what i'd expect a high-rated Blu-ray to offer.
With other threads on this site including people who've yet to be convinced about Blu-ray's superiority over DVD, I think it's vital we're all very honest about what you're going to see when you rent/buy a new disc. And in the case of Close Encounters, I feel people need to set their expectations at a reasonable level - it's a slightly soft-looking film that hasn't had a through remaster for the high-definition format (and the soundtrack could do with some work, too).ÿ
Reviews should be for everyone, not just people who understand about film grain, technique etc: viewers just want to know whether the Blu-ray is worth investing their hard-earned money in, which in many cases means 'is it significantly better than the DVD?' In my opinion, the Close Encounters BD doesn't go quite far enough.
Praising a Blu-ray for doing a 'decent' job with the source material isn't the same as praising it as a great Blu-ray disc....ÿ
ÿ
With other threads on this site including people who've yet to be convinced about Blu-ray's superiority over DVD, I think it's vital we're all very honest about what you're going to see when you rent/buy a new disc. And in the case of Close Encounters, I feel people need to set their expectations at a reasonable level - it's a slightly soft-looking film that hasn't had a through remaster for the high-definition format (and the soundtrack could do with some work, too).ÿ
Reviews should be for everyone, not just people who understand about film grain, technique etc: viewers just want to know whether the Blu-ray is worth investing their hard-earned money in, which in many cases means 'is it significantly better than the DVD?' In my opinion, the Close Encounters BD doesn't go quite far enough.
Praising a Blu-ray for doing a 'decent' job with the source material isn't the same as praising it as a great Blu-ray disc....ÿ
ÿ
Mentasm:
[There are many factors that affect the amount of grain in an image, not least of which are the film stock used and the lighting. Are you advocating that studios DNR the hell out of their films, thus eradicating visible grain and therefore removing image detail? Not all films are supposed to look like Pixar animation! Close Encounters is an accurate transfer, which is what Blu-ray is meant to provide.
I think to be honest most people expect all fims to look better than a pixar animation! HD is all about sharpness and visible detail. An accurate transfer is not really what people are looking for either. They're looking for a significant improvement over traditional DVD / tv / cinema footage (the last one makes sense when you consider screen size). However, DNR is not the answer.
I think there's a fundamental problem with many older films when it comes to making the transfer to BD. Whilst there's no doubt all films were shot at more than HD resolution there's more to sharpness than resolution. The sharpness is affected by the quality of the lens used (not all studios especially low budget ones have always been able to afford ultra high quality lenses and lenses have got better over the years), the film stock used - not all film is equal, the film speed used (any stills photographer will tell you the faster the film the more visible grain - it might be that a particular fim had a lot of dark scenes so they used faster stock, or maybe it was just cheaper so they bought a batch!), the lighting, the quality of the processing. There are a lot of factors.
You have to remember that with the very latest films being shot on ultra sharp digital cameras, older film can't always match that and even with modern cameras, there's still a difference according to lens and sensor quality.
That said, as Clare said, quality of transfer is very important. As the wizard of oz shows, if you have a good quality origianl and do a good quality transfer, then you can get a good result even with an old film.
I also think Home and Away on FIVE is a good example of how compression affects a programme. I've been watching it on Freesat and the transmission is so good I'm seeing things I've never seen in over 10 years of watching the soap - detail in Lea and Martha's faces, grain in the stonework in Roman's flat, I even saw a plant in the corridor I've never even noticed before. In fact for SD, I'd have to say it looks HD to me. It could be its now being shot on HD and downscaled to SD as this does produce better results than SD alone. However, the point I'm trying to make, is it blows the other SD programmes away for quality that I've seen and as they all transmitted in SD there can only be 1 difference - the quality of the compression (transfer if you like) on the original stock.
[There are many factors that affect the amount of grain in an image, not least of which are the film stock used and the lighting. Are you advocating that studios DNR the hell out of their films, thus eradicating visible grain and therefore removing image detail? Not all films are supposed to look like Pixar animation! Close Encounters is an accurate transfer, which is what Blu-ray is meant to provide.
I think to be honest most people expect all fims to look better than a pixar animation! HD is all about sharpness and visible detail. An accurate transfer is not really what people are looking for either. They're looking for a significant improvement over traditional DVD / tv / cinema footage (the last one makes sense when you consider screen size). However, DNR is not the answer.
I think there's a fundamental problem with many older films when it comes to making the transfer to BD. Whilst there's no doubt all films were shot at more than HD resolution there's more to sharpness than resolution. The sharpness is affected by the quality of the lens used (not all studios especially low budget ones have always been able to afford ultra high quality lenses and lenses have got better over the years), the film stock used - not all film is equal, the film speed used (any stills photographer will tell you the faster the film the more visible grain - it might be that a particular fim had a lot of dark scenes so they used faster stock, or maybe it was just cheaper so they bought a batch!), the lighting, the quality of the processing. There are a lot of factors.
You have to remember that with the very latest films being shot on ultra sharp digital cameras, older film can't always match that and even with modern cameras, there's still a difference according to lens and sensor quality.
That said, as Clare said, quality of transfer is very important. As the wizard of oz shows, if you have a good quality origianl and do a good quality transfer, then you can get a good result even with an old film.
I also think Home and Away on FIVE is a good example of how compression affects a programme. I've been watching it on Freesat and the transmission is so good I'm seeing things I've never seen in over 10 years of watching the soap - detail in Lea and Martha's faces, grain in the stonework in Roman's flat, I even saw a plant in the corridor I've never even noticed before. In fact for SD, I'd have to say it looks HD to me. It could be its now being shot on HD and downscaled to SD as this does produce better results than SD alone. However, the point I'm trying to make, is it blows the other SD programmes away for quality that I've seen and as they all transmitted in SD there can only be 1 difference - the quality of the compression (transfer if you like) on the original stock.
I can agree with that, but we're talking about two separate things here: consumer expectation and faithful repoduction of the source material. People might expect films like Close Encounters to look like they were shot last week, but they weren't, so they won't (even if they've been processed to hell). If a Blu-ray presentation accurately portrays the intended or original look of the film it cannot objectively be considered poor. Subjectively yes, because things like the viewers preference for certain visual styles come into play, but objectively speaking CE3K is not a poor 'transfer'. People complained about the quality of 300 on Blu-ray because of all the grain, calling it a 'poor transfer' when it fact it's a brilliant transfer because it looks exactly like it did theatrically.
Again, you're just talking pictures (which I still disagree with you on as regards this film, but we'll have to agree to differ), so what about the sound? Did it sound that poor theatrically? No.
Really not sure why you're defending a rush-job Blu-ray that'll doubtless be surpassed by a special edition that's had proper attention (for example being transferred from a restored camera negative) .
People considering buying the Close Encounters Blu-ray deserve to know it's not going to deliver a great deal over the DVD version. If they're happy with that, that's fine - at the end of the day, it should be about the movie, not the medium - but let's not pretend it's going to impress anyone with what HD audio and video can deliver.
I agree re 300, by the way - we used it as a test disc way back when it was only on HD DVD
Anyway, it's Christmas, I don't want to argue anymore....
Really not sure why you're defending a rush-job Blu-ray that'll doubtless be surpassed by a special edition that's had proper attention (for example being transferred from a restored camera negative) .
People considering buying the Close Encounters Blu-ray deserve to know it's not going to deliver a great deal over the DVD version. If they're happy with that, that's fine - at the end of the day, it should be about the movie, not the medium - but let's not pretend it's going to impress anyone with what HD audio and video can deliver.
I agree re 300, by the way - we used it as a test disc way back when it was only on HD DVD
Anyway, it's Christmas, I don't want to argue anymore....
I purchased Close Encounters for a tenner, it better look good! Atleast the 30yr Anniversary box looks good lol
Where do these people come from? Are Toshiba paying them?
I appreciate there are a few BD's that aren't up to scratch, but 99% of them are way better than their DVD counterparts. How people can't see they're better is totally beyond me! And as for complaints about the Dark Knight picture quality......that's just laughable.
Grain has existed since films began, so why are people complaining about it now?
I'm getting a little sick and tired of people complaining they can't see the difference between DVD and BD, and that their films are 'grainy' all of a sudden. Wake up.
I appreciate there are a few BD's that aren't up to scratch, but 99% of them are way better than their DVD counterparts. How people can't see they're better is totally beyond me! And as for complaints about the Dark Knight picture quality......that's just laughable.
Grain has existed since films began, so why are people complaining about it now?
I'm getting a little sick and tired of people complaining they can't see the difference between DVD and BD, and that their films are 'grainy' all of a sudden. Wake up.
I didn't realise 300 was meant to be grainy, maybe I'm used to the upscaled dvd, but I found it really annoying, lol. I've checked out bluray.highdefdigest.com, it looks like a good site for tracking down the discs to try. They explained the grainy pq of 300 was intended, but can look like mosquitoes which is a shame. But don't get me wrong, I don't mind grain, it can add to a films atmosphere. And I can understand pq of older films only going so far with restoration.
I'm happy with upscaled pq so far, 30 days of night aside (fast motion), my discs have looked great, but I am tempted to make future purchases BD.
I'm happy with upscaled pq so far, 30 days of night aside (fast motion), my discs have looked great, but I am tempted to make future purchases BD.
I must support Claire here - taking into account the potential of the technology & the price differential, 'competent' for Blu Ray should surely be defined as something far higher than 'just about OK in places'.
Having bought successive pieces of equipment as recommended by WHF I do have confidence in what they say, & the hard facts are that there are some Blu Ray discs that are just not good enough.
Close Encounters is firmly in that category for me - although (as previously posted elsewhere) the worst offender I have encountered to date is Lost 4. I love this series, yet Blu Ray Lost 4 veers from pictorial brilliance to utterly unacceptable grainy wretchedness from frame to frame.
These shouldn't be defended, they should be named & shamed!
Jon
Having bought successive pieces of equipment as recommended by WHF I do have confidence in what they say, & the hard facts are that there are some Blu Ray discs that are just not good enough.
Close Encounters is firmly in that category for me - although (as previously posted elsewhere) the worst offender I have encountered to date is Lost 4. I love this series, yet Blu Ray Lost 4 veers from pictorial brilliance to utterly unacceptable grainy wretchedness from frame to frame.
These shouldn't be defended, they should be named & shamed!
Jon
Until we know what can be done with the original negative, we can't demand anything better. There is damage to the original, that's plainly obvious. There are scenes where the top third and bottom third of the visible picture is out of focus - this can't be repaired. The parts that aren't damaged can plainly be seen as better quality than the DVD. If there's grain on the original, it's going to be there on the BD.
I think it's important to get advice from the experts, Clare's original replies certainly put my mind at ease, I naively thought all Blu-Ray would be a very high quality picture, sadly Close Encounters is not and the the DVD is more enjoyable to watch, at least the sky looks like sky. I have also found the blue sky at the begining of 2001 A Space Odyssey to look as if it was painted on with a roller, it probably was it's just a shock when you first see it. Having now watched several Blu-Ray discs thanks to Santa I can now appreciate just what Blu-Ray is capable of. The film Mama Mia is a fantastic example of high picture quality and the difference between that and Close Encounters is the same difference between rubbish and crystal. From now on I will definately read reviews before purchasing old films transferred onto Blu-Ray.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
I test OLED TVs for a living – and trust me, different sizes perform differently- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 1
-
-
Biggest Upgrade Improvement? Rega Aphelion 2 or Aura?
- Started by hybridauth_Google_112692162581130744674
- Replies: 4
-
-
Improve your TV's audio for peanuts with this super-cheap soundbar deal
- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram