# Sticky  HD Disk (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) EE and DNR list



## mhafner

This is a list of titles on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray who have been suggested/verified to show EE/ringing (edge enhancement, sharpening) and/or DNR (digital noise/grain reduction) processing and/or aliasing and/or ITC issues (incorrect progressive picture from film source) or other technical anomalies due to mastering and not due to the film master itself. This list is being further added to as new information becomes available.

The complete list is always in this posting.

This thread is not for basic discussion of what EE and DNR etc. is or if this type of processing or artifact is good or bad, distracting or not distracting. That can be discussed elsewhere. This list is for people who know what it is, what it looks like and have decided that they don't like it and want to avoid discs having (a lot of) it. This list is also not about the "format war" as EE and DNR etc. can as easily appear on HD-DVD as on BR. It's not a format issue.

This is also NOT a list of the 'worst' HD disks out there (although some examples on this list arguably are among the worst HD released so far). It's simply a list of disks and some technical issues that have been identified on them. The extent and visibility of the issue can vary from disk to disk and of course also from display to display as people watch the disk. As such we don't give a rating of good or bad but merely confirm the presence of the 'artifact' (although the original submitter is free to express his personal judgement of the transfer in the comment section). What people make out of it on their systems is their call.

Why this list? There are enough reviews of discs elsewhere, no? Unfortunately I'm not aware of sources elsewhere on the net that tell us if there is DNR and/or EE etc. with any kind of accuracy and reliability, title by title. This list is supposed to be such a source, as incomplete as it will be at least for now.

Finally, the list does not try to list each and every instance of a (perceived) technical problem on all discs released. The issues have to reach a certain level of frequency and severity for the disc to be listed. Where to draw the line is ultimately subjective and the decision of the thread owner.

Data accepted for each title affected is

- Film title

- Disc details (HD-DVD/BR, year, country, studio)

- Problem type (EE/DNR/Aliasing/ITC/Banding)

- Some time codes of frames that show the problem clearly

- Free text as required to quantify the problem further (how strong, what kind of artifacts, how frequent etc.)

- if available URLs to images that illustrate the problems (direct digital with 1:1 pixel mapping only, no snapshots of screens or processed images beyond high quality jpeg compression)

As a minimum to get a listing film title, disc details and some time codes or examples are required. Free text is encouraged to roughly describe the extent of the processing.

No contributions please unless you are sure your display chain itself is free of EE (including rescaling), Banding and DNR and you watch at least with 720p resolution, better 1080p, though. And from close enough and/or projected large. For aliasing claims you MUST use a 1080p display with 1:1 pixel mapping (you should use that anyway for verification of all claims).

The rest of the thread is for discussion of individual discs in case findings on the list are disputed.

If you have new titles to add you can post them here too and I will process them.

Finally, the comments are by the various submitters of the data and not one person, so some inconsistencies are inevitable (several "worst I have ever seen" etc.)


The list is alphabetical by film title (ignoring articles).


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: 1408 (2007) 

Studio: Dutch Filmworks

Disc: HD-DVD (EU), BD (USA)

Problem: Jaggies

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Probably an incorrect filtering job from the DI.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: 3:10 to Yuma (2007) 

Studio: Lionsgate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Y and UV out of sync. Color fringing and aliasing at edges

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Probably an incorrect filtering job from the DI. The 4:2:0 format is screwed up.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Amadeus (1984) 

Studio: Warner Brothers

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: As long as we have static shots where not much moves it looks like scrubbed HD light, very mediocre. Once things move we get also an ugly veil of DNR smearing over all moving textures. Stone age DNR, that is. Not remotely close to what could be done with sophisticated grain processing methods available today. This disc is a major embarrassment to WB. Quote Robert Harris : "Somewhere between the film element and the Blu-ray this particular Amadeus has been turned to something odd and Patton-esque. Not necessarily soft, certainly clean, but with virtually no feel of film or cinema whatsoever, this Amadeus is an unwelcome surprise."

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: American Psycho (2000) 

Studio: Lionsgate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE/Ringing, DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old and outdated transfer

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Army of Darkness (1992) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticeable EE ringing throughout film.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: "Band of Brothers" (2001) 

Studio: HBO/Warner Brothers/DreamWorks

Disc: BD

Problem: Inconspicuous DNR

Time Codes: Parts of the feature, not part 5.

Comments: DNR similar to Walk the Line / Disturbia / MPEG-2 version of The Descent. The DNR was missing on the HD-DVD edition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Baraka (1992) 

Studio: MPI

Disc: BD

Problem: EE/Ringing

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Halos from sharpening are visible almost all the time. Strength varies. The sharpening together with the clean look of 65mm footage gives the transfer a high dynamic range digital camera look instead of a film look.

URL: Thick EE around blue cloth Halos around the stone objects 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Basic Instinct (1992) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: There is literally no grain and significantly less detail than what is found in other HD presentations. DNR artifacts such as ghosting trails are not uncommon.

URLs: Comparison DVD/HD-DVD/BD 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007) 

Studio: Image Entertainment

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Aliasing/Moiré/Wobbling

Time Codes: At regular intervals during the whole film

Comments: Another Genesis sourced transfer that has issues with jaggies and messed up fine detail. Most shots look clean but some have massive wobbling of vertical lines or jaggies are running up and down some edges, freeze into invisibilty and come alive again. Car grills are problematic, as usual. Bad conversion to 1080p 4:2:0? Problems in the master?

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Big Lebowski (1998) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticable EE ringing throughout film.

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Bulletproof (1996) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: EE is visible throughout.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Butterfly on a Wheel (2007) 

Studio: Icon

Disc: BD (UK)

Problem: 24fps

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Mastered in 24fps instead of the standard 23.976fps. This causes problems with equipment that sticks strictly to 23.976 (dropped frames etc.)

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Caddyshack (1980) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Aliasing (Jaggies)

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments:

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 Example 7 Example 8 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Casino Royale (2006) 

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Actual confirmation by a Sony insider about the grain reduction. Artifacts minimal.

URL: AVS paidgeek's post 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Cat People (1982) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Another outdated Universal transfer with a dated look with thick EE.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 (nudity!) Example 5 Example 6 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) 

Studio: Disney

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film more or less

Comments: Textures in motion are often smeared/messed up. The worst smearing happens when the children reach Aslan's camp. The big battle in the end on the other hand looks mostly very good. Transfer is on the soft side and uneven, smeared shots and clean(er) shots follow each other. There are a few halos from sharpening.

URLs:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Clear and Present Danger (1994) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Waxy and smeared faces everywhere and haloes around high contrast edges.

URLs: Cinema Squid's captures 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Con Air (1997) 

Studio: Disney

Disc: BD (UK/US)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Frequently shows up throughout

Comments: There are often thick edge halos in combination with a significantly smoothed, plastic look.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Crank (2006) 

Studio: Lionsgate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: More or less throughout.

Comments: The EE is in the master and was also visible on 35mm prints.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Dark City (1998) 

Studio: New Line

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR/EE/Aliasing

Time Codes:

Comments: Haloes from EE and waxy/smeared faces are popping up at regular intervals. Transfer is uneven. Some shots have also aliasing issues.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Dark Knight (2008) 

Studio: Warner Brothers

Disc: BD

Problem: EE/DNR

Time Codes: All 35mm parts

Comments: 35mm parts have halos from EE and an overprocessed harsh look. IMAX parts look much much better.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Dawn of the Dead (1978) 

Studio: Anchor Bay

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: DNR: throughout. Dirt & Scratch correction problem: 00:34:39

Comments: Temporal DNR causes smearing (see URL 1). Dirt & scratch removal problem at 00:34:39 causes shimmering highlights in the water to be mistaken for white film scratches and corrupted (URL 2).

URLs: Link1 Link2 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Indigènes (2006) aka Days of Glory (2006) 

Studio: Metrodome

Disc: Blu-ray (UK)

Problem: Jaggies

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Probably a bad filtering job from the DI.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Days of Heaven (1978) 

Studio: Criterion

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Regular halos around high contrast edges. Suggestions this is in the original photography have not been substantiated so far.

URLs: AVS thread with stills 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Il Decameron (1971) 

Studio: BFI

Disc: BD (UK)

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: The second Pasolini BD from the British FILM Institute that does not look like FILM due to

agressive and bad quality digital filtering that corrodes the textures with blocky noise and turns everything into an ugly overprocessed film-video bastard, including halos around high contrast edges from sharpening. Same look as Salò. Obviously the same transfer facility at it again with their clueless processing.

That BFI has no policy in place to not release such substandard product is sad indeed.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Deer Hunter (1978) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: Slight EE visible against the sky in certain shots (needs to be rechecked)

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Departed (2006) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD (USA), HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Chapter 33

Comments: Vertical wallpaper stripes disappear unnaturally when the camera pans. DNR is thought to be on the DI and not a Blu Ray mastering issue. Overall a good looking transfer.

URLs: Link1 Link2 Link3 Link4 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Descent (2005) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Comments: The older AVC encoded version has the grain intact, the newer MPEG2 version is degrained.

URLs: AVS thread 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Dirty Dancing (1987) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR, EE, Aliasing, Banding

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Apparently a transfer from hell, processed to death.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 Example 7 Example 8 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Donnie Brasco (1997) 

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: Strong but extremely thin EE occasionally visible along high-contrast edges.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Doors (1991) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Obvious EE in some scenes, and plastic faces everywhere.

URLs: Cinema Squid's captures 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Elf (2003) 

Studio: New Line

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Plastic waxy look throughout

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Elizabeth (1998) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: 3:32 Bishop's outline (rather thick white halo)/06:00 Outline of bowing figure (halo)/22:15 Outline of head and window (haloes)/28:29 Outline/branches of tree and figures (haloes)

Comments: The EE is best visible on high contrast edges. Since much of the film is dark and such edges are frequently not there the effect of the EE is often more subtle than in the examples. EE as used here gives the imagery a somewhat coarse videoish look, sometimes rather obvious, sometimes in a more subtle way.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Enter the Dragon (1973) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD and HD-DVD

Problem: Aliasing (Jaggies)

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments:

URLs: Forum member Gooki's screen grabs 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Erin Brockovich (2000) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Probably an old transfer with noticeable EE throughout film.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Escape from New York (1981) 

Studio: Optimum

Disc: Blu-ray (UK)

Problem: EE, SD master?

Time Codes:

Comments: Edge enhancement, aliasing, very little detail. Likely an SD upscale.

URLs: Blu-ray vs. DVD 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Event Horizon (1997) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: Blu-ray

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Rather thick halos from sharpening pop up regularly. Dommage.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Evil Dead II (1987) 

Studio: Starz

Disc: Blu-ray (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: The grain is literally frozen in place in every shot. It looks like a layer of dirt is on your screen.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Eyes Wide Shut (1999) 

Studio: WB

Disc: HD-DVD (USA), BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: 10:13.. (watch left model's right arm), 18:24.. (watch man's right cheek), 23:07.. (watch Kidman's

face), 44:20.. (watch walls, jacket; one of the worst shots in the film)

Comments: Pretty much the whole film looks processed with varying degrees of artifacting. Even well lit

scenes with little grain have been tampered with, such as the final scene in the toy shop.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Face/Off (1997) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD (UK/USA)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes:

Comments: Outdated far from optimal transfer with heavy DNR and some sharpening as well.

URLs: HD-DVD/BD Comparison 1080p SD-HD Comparison 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Fantastic Four (2005) 

Studio: Fox/Constantin Film

Disc: BD (Germany)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: DNR smearing degrades image quality. HD light.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticable EE ringing throughout film.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Really edgy old transfer

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Final Destination (2000) 

Studio: New Line/EIV

Disc: BD (USA/UK)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Parts of the film

Comments: Some shots show messed up textures from DNR, others don't.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: First Blood (1982) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR, digital scratch removal artifacts, minor EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Virtually no film grain, wax-like presentation, and an abundance of ghosting artifacts. Scratch removal mistakenly removes actual picture details like parts of bullets and light reflections. The image is also sharpened slightly but without visible halos. StudioCanal/Optimum's releases use the same bad master but without this digital processing.

URLs: Screenshot comparison thread Direct link to stills 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) 

Studio: Lions Gate, Optimum, Momentum/StudioCanal/Universal

Disc: BD (USA), BD (UK), HD-DVD (UK/France/Australia/Germany)

Problem: Inverse telecine (IVTC) error(?)

Time Codes: 1:23:57, 1:24:51

Comments: This appears to be an IVTC error of some sort, motion becomes jerky and frames are more or less duplicated but obviously interpolated from half-height frames (fields), replacing fields that are dropped entirely. It happens twice but only for a few seconds. The DVD doesn't have this issue.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Flash Gordon (1980) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Various amounts of scrubbing througout.

URLs: Examples 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Fog (1980) 

Studio: Optimum

Disc: BD, HD-DVD

Problem: Upconvert

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Confimed to be an upconvert.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Full Metal Jacket (1987) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD (first edition) and HD-DVD (first edition)

Problem: Aliasing (Jaggies)

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments: This was fixed in Warner's 2007 BD and HD-DVD remastered versions

URLs: Forum member Gooki's screen grabs 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Extreme DNR which makes everything look smoothed over and unnatural. Very upconvertish quality with EE ringing.

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Fugitive (1993) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD (USA) and HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Aliasing (Jaggies)

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments:

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 Example 7 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Gangs of New York (2002) 

Studio: Enterainment in Video (EiV) (UK)/Disney (US)

Disc: BD (UK/US/Germany)

Problem: DNR + EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: The whole movie has probably the worst DNR + EE I've seen on a disc yet.

URLs: Link1 Link2 Link 3 Attention. The film has since been remastered and the new transfer is state of the art: New DB 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Gattaca (1997) 

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: Allegedly brand new transfer but sometimes obvious EE. Disturbing.

URL: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Gladiator (2000) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: BD

Problem: EE/DNR/Scratch-dirt removal gone astray

Time Codes: Whole movie except extended parts which look fine

Comments: While the original transfer has minor EE too the Blu Ray has a lot more and sports an ugly harsh video look. Glaring halos, waxy faces, removed objects due to poor scratch removal. Completely unacceptable to release such overprocessed rubbish in 2009 when a major motion picture is involved (actually with any motion picture, but with Oscar winners!!!?!). Needs to be recalled.

Update: A new BD is coming with a proper new transfer. The difference is not subtle at all.

URLs: TV version 1 Filtered Blu Ray 1 TV version 2 Filtered Blu Ray 2 TV version 3 Filtered Blu Ray 3 TV version 4 Filtered Blu Ray 4 Comparison old and new BD 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Gwoemul (2006) aka The Host (2006) 

Studio: Magnolia

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE/DNR

Time Codes: EE whole movie, DNR sometimes

Comments: At first sight a very good looking transfer, but on a large screen it becomes quickly obvious that the transfer is sharpened from start to finish and at times also grain filtering has been applied, giving the images a somewhat digital and hard appearance. It looks best with the dark material and less so with daylight scenes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Half Baked (1998) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticable EE ringing throughout film.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Happening (2008) 

Studio: Fox

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Noise filtering

Time Codes: Whole transfer

Comments: A noise filter was applied which smears moving textures a bit and adds unnatural looking

noise patterns to textures. Images look processed and not in a film like way. The deleted scenes look different but also filtered.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Happy Feet (2006) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD (USA), HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Banding

Time Codes: Various scenes with gradients

Comments: Appears to be source related

URLs: Xylon's captures, VC-1 and POSTERIZATION thread with pics, HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: "Heroes" (2006): Season One 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA), BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: Certain scenes exhibit strong/thick EE halos. Most shots have a coarse video look due to the sharpening. That this is still going on in 2006/2007 is depressing. Apparently the mentality is that it's 'only made for TV' so let's sharpen the hell out of the film source.

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: "Heroes" (2006): Season Two 

Studio: Universal

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: Various amounts of EE are in practically all shots.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: High School Musical 3: Senior Year (2008) 

Studio: Disney

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR

Time Codes:

Comments: An overall good looking transfer but some shots show messed up skin by DNR processing and some smearing with other textures. Most likely part of the original digital intermediate. By the way, HSM 1+2 have also DNR issues (smearing).

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: A History of Violence (2005) 

Studio: New Line/EIV

Disc: BD (USA), BD (UK)

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Whole disc

Comments: Quote Robert Harris : "What we have is another failure. Colors are pretty. The film element is clean. But again, it takes on the plastic look of 'Patton'. Virtually all detail is gone." 'Nuff said. ATTENTION: The UK disc is NOT DNRed and a good alternative if you can play region B discs. It has also the EE, though, which seems to be baked into the original transfer while the DNR is not but was added for BD mastering in US. See US-UK comparison . Since the film had a DI by E-Film the question arises if the HD is from the DI. The EE and electronic look of the HD would be atypical for a DI from E-Film.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Hot Rod (2007) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Strange screen door pattern over the image

Time Codes: Whole disc

Comments: If you scale the picture down to smaller size it becomes magnified as vertical bars.

URL: Full res Scaled down 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: House of 1000 Corpses (2003) 

Studio: Universal/Lionsgate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments: Grain structure frozen in place, movement causes mild background "warping", rather than smearing (as is the case with the temporal NR methods). Edge enhancement throughout, but not the worst example.

URLs: Link1 Link2 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Hulk (2003) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: BD (USA), HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE/sharpening

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Some EE often visible. Overall a good looking transfer, though.

URLs: http://www.imagebam.com/ 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Immortel (ad vitam) (2004) 

Studio: First Look Pictures

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Upscaled SD, aliasing etc.

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: There is no HD transfer on the disc but simply an upsampled SD version. Aliasing all over the place. No HD detail

whatsoever. On the back for once it's no typo if they say it's NTSC.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Italian Job (2003) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD (USA), HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Whole Movie

Comments: Lots of DNR and EE, especially noticable against the overcast sky in the begining of the film.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Jodhaa Akbar (2008) 

Studio: Bodega

Disc: BD (France)

Problem: 24fps, DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Mastered in 24fps instead of the standard 23.976fps. This causes problems with equipment that sticks strictly to 23.976 (dropped frames etc.). There are also some DNR artifacts visible, possibly coming from the DI.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) 

Studio: Miramax

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Especially Chapter 2 (Church) but at some other places too

Comments: The church scene shows strong smearing and other DNR artifacts. The rest of the film is less affected or not

at all (animation). The DNR is on the DI and not a Blu Ray mastering issue. 35mm prints had the same look.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Kung Fu Panda (2008) 

Studio: Paramount/DreamWorks

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Ringing

Comments: Mild ringing throughout film, indicative of a low pass filter. Best visible at top and bottom image border.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Last Starfighter (1984) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD/BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments: Massive digital noise reduction greatly reduced detail, waxy look

URLs: (pics have been pulled) Link 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Das Leben der Anderen (2006)/The Lives of Others (2006) 

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: An extremely nice and film-like transfer, but edge enhancement is visible in certain shots. Most of the time it's barely noticeable though.

URLs: Example of stronger EE, Example of lighter EE, What it's like most of the time (only very faint effect visible along jawline) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Lethal Weapon (1987) 

Studio: Warner Brothers

Disc: BD (USA), HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Temporal DNR causing unnatural and partially frozen grain movement, smearing, and disappearing image information in motion. Details of patterned wallpaper, clothing, etc. phase in and out of existence, especially during camera pans. Most times the movie cuts to a different camera angle, the picture is uncorrupted for a single frame and then grain-wiped for the rest of the shot (this switch isn't visible during playback).

URLs: Remnants of print artifacts frozen for an extra frame: A B C 

Shot change: A B 

Another shot change: A B 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD (USA) and HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Aliasing (Jaggies)

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments:

URLs: Forum member Gooki's screen grabs Forum member Gooki's screen grabs 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Liar Liar (1997) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticeable EE ringing throughout film. Horrible looking.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Life of Brian (1979) 

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: The transfer has been grain processed by Lowry/DTS.

URLs: Example1, Example2, Example3 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Longest Day (1962) 

Studio: Fox

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: From Robert Harris (restorer of such classics as Lawrence of Arabia): I was unable to recognize it as film. There was no look of the cinema, except for some occasional white vertical scratches that remain. To my eye, the image appears to be highly processed, removing grain, and with it, much of the high frequency information that can be so easily replicated in the wonderful Blu-Ray system.

URLs: John Wax-Wayne, born Tussaud .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 

Studio: Warner/New Line

Disc: BD (worldwide)

Problem: EE, DNR

Time Codes:

Comments: Waxy textures and faces due to DNR in several scenes

URL: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 See also BD versus HDTV thread 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Mallrats (1995) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Old transfer with EE/ringing, same problem as The Big Lebowski

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Matrix (1999) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Comments: Slight EE/Ringing visible in certain shots

Time Codes:

URLs: Link1 Link2 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Meet the Parents (2000) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: probably an old transfer with noticeable EE throughout film. Can provide timecodes, but i think it's quite obvious.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009) 

Disc: BD (USA)

Studio: Starz/Anchor Bay

Problem: Aliasing/Color Fringing

Time Codes:

URLs: Example 1 Example2 Example3 Example4 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) 

Studio: Fox

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes:

Comments: A few shots show DNR smearing. Nothing major. Overall a nice looking transfer and much better

than the 35mm prints which were full of DNR smearing.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Monster's Ball (2001) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Throughout

Comments: Another visit at Madame Tussaud's with some halos thrown in for good measure.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 (nudity!) Example 3 Example 4 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Mummy (1999) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA), BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Opening desert shootout

Comments: EE halos during certain scenes, most visible against desert skies

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive Example Example 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Mummy Returns (2001) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Blu Ray disc has DNR the HD-DVD does not have.

URLs: DNRed BD still1 Not DNRed HD-DVD still1 DNRed BD still2 Not DNRed HD-DVD still2 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE/DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticable EE ringing throughout film and grain largely gone.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Narc (2002) 

Studio: Splendid Film

Disc: BD (Germany)

Problem: SD Upconvert

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An upconvert if I ever saw one.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 Example 7 Example 8 Example 9 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: National Treasure (2004) 

Studio: Disney/Buena Vista

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Comments: White haloes from EE regularly pop up, well visible for example in the early snow shots. Overall a pretty good looking transfer, though.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Near Dark (1987) 

Studio: Optimum

Disc: BD (UK)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: DNR smearing often visible on moving skin etc.

URLs: Stills 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Next (2007) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: HD-DVD (USA), BD (UK/USA)

Problem: Aliasing

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Looks like a filtering bug from DI to 1080p master

URLs: Example 1 
Example 2 
Example 3 
Example 4 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) 

Studio: Disney

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Scratch removal artifacts

Time Codes:

Comments: Some frames have genuine image information filtered away because it was mistaken for scratches/random noise.

URLs: Scratch removal artifact example 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) 

Studio: Alliance (master is most likely from NewLine)

Disc: BD (Canada)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Wax faces throughout.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Nutty Professor (1996) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticable EE ringing throughout film.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Orphanage (2007) 

Studio: New Line

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Aliasing

Time Codes: Whole Movie

Comments: Jaggies along all sharp edges. Looks like a 
creating the 1080p master.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Out of Africa (1985) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR and EE

Time Codes: Whole Movie

Comments: Outdated transfer not suitable for Blu Ray, with thick EE and waxy textures due to DNR all

around. Not film like at all.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 (see Beaver Link (Beaver blocks direct links to the stills))

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Pan's Labyrinth (2006) 

Studio: New Line

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR and possibly EE

Time Codes: Whole Movie

Comments: US BD has strong DNR, French HD-DVD and German/UK BD do not. The French HD-DVD has scratch/speckel removal artifacts, though. Correct image detail is mixed up with defects and (partially) removed. The examples show the difference clearly. DNR destroys the film look and turns people into wax puppets.

URLs:
Example1_UK_BD_No_DNR 
Example1_US_BD_HD-DVD_WITH_DNR 
Example2_UK_BD_No_DNR 
Example2_US_BD_HD-DVD_WITH_DNR 
Example3_UK_BD_No_DNR 
Example3_US_BD_HD-DVD_WITH_DNR 
Example4_UK_BD_No_DNR 
Example4_US_BD_HD-DVD_WITH_DNR 
UK BD versus French HD-DVD Example 1 UK BD versus French HD-DVD Example 2 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Patton (1970) 

Studio: Fox

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR, also EE sometimes

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: A relentlessly degrained transfer with an unreal hyperclean CGI look not representative of the film original at all. Very smooth and lacking fine detail that is gone together with the grain. Revisionist film mastering for HD at its best/worst.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 Example 7 
Example 8 (EE) 
Example 9 (EE) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut (2006) (V) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD (USA), HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: 25:41... (Scene where Porter meets Stegman and corrupt police officers)

Comments: Only one scene has bad DNR, the rest looks untouched or with minor tweaking

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Perfect Storm (2000) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Aliasing (Jaggies)

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments:

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: "Planet Earth" (2006) 

Studio: BBC/Warner

Disc: BD (USA), HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Banding

Time Codes: Certain scenes with gradients

Comments: Broadcast HD BBC version doesn't exhibit the problem

URLs: thread with captures from House 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Predator 2 (1990) 

Studio: Fox

Disc: BD (UK)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Predator (1987) 

Studio: Fox

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: This refers to the 2010 REMASTER ONLY! The original release is NOT DNRed!! Instead of a new encoding of the existing transfer it was processed to death. Rubbish wax museum instead of a proper remastering.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Reader (2008) 

Studio: Weinstein

Disc: BD

Problem: Ringing

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Good looking disc but persistent ringing at the top and bottom and on edges with enough contrast in the picture. A suboptimal ringing digital filter was used somewhere in the processing chain.

URLs: Example 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Rendition (2007) 

Studio: Entertainment in Video / New Line Cinema

Disc: BD (UK)

Problem: strong DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: DNR at the level of Pan's Labyrinth (US)

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Reservoir Dogs (1992) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes:

Comments: The effect may not be as devastating as some other examples, but there is a distinct lack of grain (and sharpness).

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Roving Mars (2006) 

Studio: Disney

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments: Massive digital noise reduction greatly reduced details. Waxy look. And this from super resolution IMAX.

Absurd!

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (1975) 

Studio: BFI

Disc: BD (UK)

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Strong EE plus a spotty grain structure due to DNR makes for a very harsh and processed look. The appearance is also pasty/doughy and the strength of halos is among the worst seen so far on Blu Ray. In addition scratch removal attacks genuine image detail several times making it flicker. A very unfilmlike transfer that falls apart miserably on medium and long shots while some close ups look ok. That this is a new transfer released by the BFI is quite disturbing. Should have been rejected by BFI as unfit for release in current form.

URLs: DVDBeaver captures, Blu-ray.com captures (register for 1080p) Details and 2 expert comments here 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Saw 3 (2006) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR/Banding

Time Codes: Whole movie/0:01:01 and 1:37:15

Comments: Temporal DNR causing detail loss, clumpy and unnaturally-moving grain, and a lot of motion trailing in darker scenes even across shot changes.

URLs: Shot change with details from previous frame still visible: A- B Another shot change: A- B 

Banding: 1 2 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Scary Movie (2000) 

Studio: Disney

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Everything looks smooth and wax-like. Small facial details are nonexistent, and other details such as clothing patterns are either completely filtered-out or continually pop in and out of the picture. Plenty of EE too. A transfer from hell. The opposite of high definition.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 Example 7 Example 8 Example 9 Example 10 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Seed of Chucky (2004) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticeable EE ringing throughout film.

URLs: Example 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Short Circuit (1986) 

Studio: Image Entertainment

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time codes: Entire movie

Comments: The worst case of DNR I've ever seen. Indoor scenes are acceptable at times. Outdoor shots are completely wiped clean leaving waxy faces and no fine detail on anything. This is consistent through out the entire movie.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Signs (2002) 

Studio: Buena Vista

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Banding/EE

Time codes: Banding: Opening and closing credits/EE: Most of the film, strong here: 8:37...

Comments: Daylight shots show more or less EE. Not much but easily visible when projected large.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Simpsons Movie (2007) 

Studio: Fox

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Ringing

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Ringing around high contrast edges, reason unknown. Requires 1080p resolution and full high frequency rendition to see it.

URLs: Link1 Link2 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Sivaji (2007) 

Studio: Ayngaran

Disc: BD

Problem: 24fps, DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Mastered in 24fps instead of the standard 23.976fps. This causes problems with equipment that sticks strictly to 23.976 (dropped frames etc.). There is also smearing from DNR processing of the DI (not a Blu Ray mastering issue). BD is very accurate to its source, the 4K DI files converted to 1080p.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: The 6th Day (2000) 

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Persistent EE visible most of the time, giving the transfer a video look.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Sixth Sense (1999) 

Studio: Disney

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Some EE present and the transfer is DNRed with the usual side effects (waxy faces). The German Blu Ray has NO DNR, only the EE and is region free (supplements in PAL, though).

URLs: US versus German examples: US1 German1 US2 German2 US3 German3 US4 German4 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Spartacus (1960) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)/BD (worldwide)

Problem: Noise (not grain), EE/DNR, EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: HD-DVD: One of the worst examples of taking an ancient transfer and slapping it on a disc. Tons of dithery noise plus ringing/EE. BD: Same transfer processed to remove noise and grain, and with it all fine detail. Bordering the waxy look. New transfer needed, not doctoring an old very outdated one.

URLs: HD-DVD: Xylon's comparison thread Robert Harris on the BD 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Spider-Man (2002) 

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Whole movie more or less

Comments: Very uneven looking transfer going from poor to very good looking shots. There is not much EE

but DNR artifacts pop up regularly.

URLs:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Stargate (1994) 

Studio: Lionsgate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie more or less

Comments: Uneven looking transfer with sometimes thick EE, sometimes lesser EE.

URLs:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Star Trek Films (Star Trek 1-6)

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR

Time Codes:

Comments: The films are DNRed although the extent varies a lot, from relatively little (1,2) to very overprocessed wax jobs lacking any resemblance to film (3-6). 6 is from an interlaced 1080i transfer. Star Trek 2 looks very good.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 (no joke!) 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Street Kings (2008) 

Studio: Fox

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes:

Comments: Minor DNR smearing visible at times. Probably part of the DI. Rather subtle. Overall this is a

good looking transfer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Sum of All Fears (2002) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes:

Comments:

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Superman (1978) 

Studio: Warner Brothers

Disc: HD-DVD, BD

Problem: DNR

Time Codes:

Comments: Most shots show smearing from DNR processing. Together with the diffusion filter photography that

results in a very soft picture most of the time.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Suspiria (1977) 

Studio: CDE

Disc: BD (Italy)

Problem: DNR and more

Time Codes:

Comments: see here 

URLs: see here 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR

Comments: Only refers to the 2009 Skynet edition which has been filtered compared to earlier releases of the same transfer. The result are oversmoothed textures and wax like skin at times.

Time Codes:

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: There Will Be Blood (2007) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: The whole film

Comments: Daylight scenes show all haloes around high contrast edges. The picture looks harsh and videolike and nonetheless somewhat fuzzy.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Thing (1982) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Unlike the HD-DVD the BD is grain filtered.

URLs: HD-DVD 1 BD 1 HD-DVD 2 BD 2 HD-DVD&BD AVS thread 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: La tigre e la neve (2005) 

Studio:

Disc: HD-DVD (Italy)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Most of the time

Comments: EE can be quite thick and obvious.

URLs:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Top Gun (1986) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: HD-DVD (USA), BD (USA)

Problem: EE/DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticeable EE ringing throughout film. Also, grain filtering artifacts due to moving parts keeping the grain and non moving parts losing it giving an uneven grain level within frames. Plus the standard waxy look of filtered human skin.

URLs: Example 1: Check grainy moving glass Example 2: Check moving Cruise versus sky and artifacts in border region Example 3: Check Cruise and border versus rest 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Total Recall (1990) 

Studio: Lionsgate & Studio Canal / Universal

Disc: BD (USA) & HD DVD (France / Australia)

Problem: Digital scratch removal artifacts

Time Codes: Whole Movie

Comments: Scratch removal that removes picture details deemed to be "scratches" such as bullet shells. The intact scratches and details can be seen on the DVD releases. The HD DVD seems to have more objects removed than the BD.

URLs: Example 1: DVD vs BD Example 2: DVD vs BD Example 3: DVD vs HD-DVD 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Traffic (2000) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Mastered from SD master, EE

Time Codes: The entire HD-DVD doesn't look like the film ought to look in 1080p.

Comments: The French HD-DVD looks much better than the USA release. In the French version, text has much better clarity, details are much more pronounced, and the film grain is appropriately resolved. Even a 720p broadcast looks much better.

URLs: Forum member Xylon's direct screen grab comparisons of the HD DVD, SD DVD, and 720p broadcast can be seen here and here and here and here and here 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Transporter (2002) 

Studio: Asmik Ace/EuropaCorp/Sony

Disc: BD (Japan)

Problem: DNR smearing

Time Codes: Most parts of the movie

Comments: Encoded from an old transfer

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Tremors (1990) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD/BD

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Extremely DNRed imagery with EE/ringing. Just atrocious. Atrocious at some spots and only a minor problem during others, but it is all over the place.

URLs: HD-DVD Example BD stills 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Truman Show (1998) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR/EE/Horizontally Stretched Image

Time Codes:

Comments: Outdated transfer with no 1080p detail to speak of. Overfiltered and distorted with a horizontal stretch. Needs to be remastered.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Thread with examples for incorrectly stretched picture 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Twister (1996) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)/BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Visible most of the time

Comments: A very smooth, clean and somehwat soft transfer, easy on the eyes. Grain has been largely removed and with it high frequency detail. Textures in motion tend to show some smearing. Faces look often oversmoothed, like too much make up powder was applied.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD-DVD (USA) /BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: EE is visible throughout, but at it's worst for the first hour or so. Some of it (all?) is also claimed to be lens related and front projection related and not EE. Fact is many edges on this transfer look unclean.

URLs: Link1 Link2 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Unbreakable (2000) 

Studio: Buena Vista

Disc: BD

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Many shots, best visible on high contrast shots with sharp edges

Comments: The vista is not so buena on this transfer that sports mostly a harsh oversharpened video look lacking detail and a film like appearance. Grain looks bad as well, especially in motion.

URLs: SD vs HD 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: U-571 (2000) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD

Problem: EE/Ringing

Time Codes:

Comments:

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Waiting... (2005) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR (noise reduction)

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments: Even sitting at a reasonable distance, severe DNR is detectable. It looks very similar to The 40-Year-Old Virgin . The transfer looks very smooth throughout with people sporting waxy Barbie doll complexions.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Walk the Line (2005) 

Studio: Fox

Disc: BD (NL/FR)

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Parts of the movie

Comments: Low to Moderate DNR / Mild EE (DNR is on par with Sixth Sense)

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Waterworld (1995) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments: Also noisy and blurry, with no good shadow detail. One of the worst HD transfers released so far. Very outdated look.

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The Wild Bunch (1969) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD-DVD (USA), BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments:

URLs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Aliasing (Jaggies)

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments: Despite no word on this for this particular title from the professional reviews, I was able to easily spot these artifacts on my 1080p display during my first viewing from my normal seating position.

URLs: Link 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: The X Files (1998) 

Studio: Twentieth Century Fox

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Macroblocking, Color Banding and especially EE

Time Codes: Macroblocking during the opening caveman scenes... Color Banding during the opening title sequence... The edge enhancement runs from the beginning of the film right to the end thus is throughout the film.

Comments: The edge enhancement is thin but very noticeable on large projection screens and it spoiled my enjoyment. The color banding is only on the title sequence and i only noticed bad macroblocking during the very opening scenes.

URLs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Young Guns (1988) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Aliasing (Jaggies)

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Visible all the time. Jaggies due to bad filtering. No 1080p detail.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Zulu (1964) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD

Problem: DNR

Comments:

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5


----------



## Alan Gouger

I think this is a good idea. For those discriminating viewers this will come in handy and lets hope over time the day will come there will be no need for this thread.

Sadly I have my share to submit to this list.


Thanks mhafner!


----------



## Gary Murrell

now where talkin'










-Gary


----------



## giggle

This might the greasest sticky of all time. I would be more interested in this than the PQ/AQ thread. Thanks, and add Top Gun to the list please.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lyris* /forum/post/12195941
> 
> 
> *The Fifth Element (remaster)
> 
> Disc:* BD, USA
> *Problem:* incorrect Inverse Telecine (IVTC), EE
> *Time Codes:* IVTC: 00:29:55 - look at the backs of the police uniforms. EE: throughout.
> *Comments:* Incorrect inverse telecine of 1080i source material causes Combing, will get picture soon.
> *URLs:* Soon



Interesting.


----------



## FrancescoP

Great thread!










Title: The Last Starfighter (1984)

Disc: HD-DVD, Universal, USA

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: throughout

Comments: massive digital noise reduction greatly reduced details

URLs: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=849


----------



## mhafner

I posted some new titles and changed the rules. You can now also report aliasing and incorrect inverse telecine issues. You need a 1080p 1:1 pixel mapped display and a progressive HD player for reporting these.


----------



## MSmith83

Title: _Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory_

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD DVD

Problem: The appearance of aliasing artifacts (jaggies) from vertical domain filtering.

Time Codes: Noticeable throughout the movie; can be spotted easily during the first few minutes.

Comments: Despite no word on this for this particular title from the professional reviews, I was able to easily spot these artifacts on my 1080p display during my first viewing from my normal seating position. A more recent thread (linked below) started by another member verifies this.

URLs: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...wonka+aliasing 


Title: _Enter the Dragon_

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD and HD DVD

Problem: The appearance of aliasing artifacts (jaggies) from vertical domain filtering.

Time Codes: Noticeable throughout the movie.

Comments: N/A

URLs: Forum member Gooki's screen grabs. 


Title: _Full Metal Jacket_ (Warner's first issue)

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD and HD DVD

Problem: The appearance of aliasing artifacts (jaggies) from vertical domain filtering.

Time Codes: Noticeable throughout the movie.

Comments: This was fixed in Warner's recent BD and HD DVD release.

URLs: Forum member Gooki's screen grabs. 


Title: _Lethal Weapon 2_

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD and HD DVD

Problem: The appearance of aliasing artifacts (jaggies) from vertical domain filtering.

Time Codes: Noticeable throughout the movie.

Comments: N/A

URLs: Forum member Gooki's screen grabs. 


Title: _Traffic_

Studio: Universal, USA

Disc: HD DVD

Problem: It appears to be sourced from an upconverted master. Lots of edge enhancement (EE) was applied.

Time Codes: The entire HD DVD doesn't look like the film ought to look in 1080p.

Comments: The French HD DVD looks much better than the USA release. In the French version, text has much better clarity, details are much more pronounced, and the film grain is appropriately resolved. Even a 720p broadcast looks much better.

URLs: Forum member Xylon's direct screen grab comparisons of the HD DVD, SD DVD, and 720p broadcast can be seen here , here , here , here , and here .


----------



## House

Title: Gangs of New York

Studio: Enterainment in Video (EiV)

Disc: BD, UK

Problem: DNR + EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: The whole movie has probably the worst DNR + EE I've seen on a disc yet.

URLs: http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9374_gangs2.png , http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9375_gangs3.png


----------



## Kram Sacul

GONY? Say it ain't so. Those pics are heartbreaking.


I'm really curious about the problems with the Fifth Element remaster. Bad flags?


How about:

*The Italian Job (2003)*

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD and HD-DVD, USA

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Whole Movie

Comments: Lots of DNR and EE, especially noticable against the overcast sky in the begining of the film.

URLs: Pending

*Spartacus (1960)*

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD, USA

Problem: Noise (not grain), EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: One of the worst examples of taking an ancient transfer and slapping it on a disc. Tons of dithery noise plus ringing EE.

URL: Xylon's comparison thread 

*The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005)*

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD, USA

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Extreme DNR which makes everything look smoothed over and unnatural. Very upconvertish quality with EE ringing.

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

*The Big Lebowski (1998)*

Studio: Universal

Dsic: HD-DVD, USA

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticable EE ringing throughout film.

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive


----------



## mhafner

Added latest examples and proper hyperlinking. Banding now also allowed as reason for listing (BUT ONLY BANDING ON THE SOURCE, NOT FROM THE DISPLAY CHAIN!).


----------



## Kram Sacul

Confirmed banding:

*Happy Feet (2006)*

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD, HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Banding

Time Codes: Various scenes with gradiants

Comments: Appears to be source related

URL: Xylon's captures , , VC-1 and POSTERIZATION thread with pics , International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

*"Planet Earth" (2006)*

Studio: BBC Warner

Disc: BD, HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: Banding

Time Codes: Certain scenes with gradients

Comments: Broadcast HD BBC version doesn't exhibit the problem

URL: thread with captures from House 


Unconfirmed (needs captures):


Ant Bully

Ice Age 2

Open Season

Sky Captain

The Wild


EE:

*The Deer Hunter (1978)*

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: Slight EE visible against the sky in certain shots

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

*Mallrats (1995)*

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Old transfer with EE/ringing, same problem as The Big Lebowski

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

*The Mummy (1999)*

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Opening desert shootout

Comments: Slight EE halos during certain scenes, most visible against desert skies

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive 

*"Heroes" - Season 1 (2006)*

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: [Need a list of affected episodes]

Comments: Certain scenes exhibit strong EE halos

URL: International HD-DVD Screenshot Archive


----------



## lgans316

Awesome work Kram. Keep it up.

How about bipolar disorder ?


Ref : http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...=6375&Itemid=3


----------



## lyris




> Quote:
> I'm really curious about the problems with the Fifth Element remaster. Bad flags?



No, BD doesn't work like that - it looks like they've taken a 1080i tape (designed for HDTV broadcast?) and not managed to convert it to 24p properly.


BTW Mhfaner, some of the picture links I posted (House of 1000 Corpses etc) don't work when you copied and pasted them because of the truncated URLs.


Oh also.... House of 1000 Corpses is from Lionsgate, not Universal


----------



## Jarod M

Title: Casino Royale (2006)

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Actual confirmation by a Sony insider about the grain reduction.

URL: paidgeek's post


----------



## lyris

Interesting, that's one of the few times where I didn't find it objectionable.


----------



## FrancescoP

There is always DNR, the problem is the amount. We need to report only the movies with too much DNR.


----------



## House




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FrancescoP* /forum/post/12236977
> 
> 
> There is always DNR, the problem is the amount. We need to report only the movies with too much DNR.



Bingo. CR doesn't belong on this list.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FrancescoP* /forum/post/12236977
> 
> 
> There is always DNR, the problem is the amount. We need to report only the movies with too much DNR.



There is not always DNR. That is incorrect. Unless you mean any compression is DNR since it's not lossless. That is not how we define DNR. And yes, please stick to films with DNR that show DNR artifacts.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *House* /forum/post/12237104
> 
> 
> Bingo. CR doesn't belong on this list.



I added it because we have explicit confirmation for DNR so it can serve as a reference for slight and careful DNR.


----------



## mhafner

Added "Elizabeth". Fixed some links.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Going by the list so far it seems Universal is the king of putting out old transfers with excessive EE and not all of them have been confirmed yet. Going by early accounts Tremors belongs up there as well.


Do any of these titles have EE or DNR?


12 Monkeys

Army of Darkness [confirmed with captures]

Backdraft

Being John Malkovich

Billy Madison

Breakfast Club

Dante's Peak

Darkman

Daylight

Dazed and Confused

Dragonheart

End of Days

Erin Brockovich

Fast Times at Ridgemont High

The Getaway (1994)

Half Baked

Liar Liar

Meet Joe Black

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life

Mystery Men

The Nutty Professor 1 & 2

Out of Sight

Patch Adams

U-571

Waterworld

The Wedding Date

What Dreams May Come


Do any of these Warner titles have jaggies?


The Fugitive

The Perfect Storm

The Twilight Zone: The Movie


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12239653
> 
> 
> Going by the list so far it seems Universal is the king of putting out old transfers with excessive EE and not all of them have been confirmed yet. Going by early accounts Tremors belongs up there as well.
> 
> 
> Do any of these titles have EE or DNR?
> 
> Meet Joe Black



The 10 minutes I checked looked quite free of (obvious) problems, unlike the DVD.


> Quote:
> Waterworld



What I saw was poor and outdated from CRT telecine times. No detail, EE, noisy.


----------



## SirDrexl

I remember Mission: Impossible 2 having some bad EE, but I don't have captures.


----------



## FrancescoP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12239653
> 
> 
> Do any of these Warner titles have jaggies?
> 
> 
> The Perfect Storm



The Perfect Storm is bobbed (vertical domain filtering applied). But I cannot find a screenshot.


----------



## House

Title: 2001 - A Space Odyssey

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD/BD, USA

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: EE is visible throughout, but at it's worst for the first hour or so.

URLs: http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9664_20011.png , http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9665_20012.png


----------



## WayneL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *House* /forum/post/12243757
> 
> 
> Title: 2001 - A Space Odyssey
> 
> Studio: Warner
> 
> Disc: HD/BD, USA
> 
> Problem: EE
> 
> Time Codes: Whole movie
> 
> Comments: EE is visible throughout, but at it's worst for the first hour or so.
> 
> URLs: http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9664_20011.png , http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9665_20012.png



That's the DVD or you have a bad set-up.


----------



## House




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WayneL* /forum/post/12243867
> 
> 
> That's the DVD or you have a bad set-up.



Screencaps direct from the disc don't lie


----------



## Kram Sacul

Hmm. I thought the HDM versions of 2001 were EE free? Uh oh.


At least it does look better than the EE-infected HDNet version, but not by a lot:




















Can we get a proper transfer of 2001 without EE or softness? Jeez, it's 70mm, it doesn't need cheap edge enhancement, just a good transfer.


----------



## davidcw8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12246787
> 
> 
> Hmm. I thought 2001 was EE free? Uh oh.
> 
> 
> At least it does look better than the HDNet version with it's strong halos, but not by a lot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a proper transfer of 2001 without EE or softness? Jeez, it's 70mm.



These images look like they've been manipulated, there are no halos around the glass or table when I look at the screen capture on my LCD monitor?

davidcw8


----------



## Kram Sacul

Those are from captures of the broadcast HD version shown on HDNet. Should've been more clear, sorry.


----------



## lyris




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12246787
> 
> 
> Hmm. I thought 2001 was EE free? Uh oh.
> 
> 
> At least it does look better than the HDNet version with it's strong halos, but not by a lot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a proper transfer of 2001 without EE or softness? Jeez, it's 70mm.



Those are grabs of the HDNet version, right? The HD DVD is nothing like as bad.


Regarding the glowing on the HD DVD of "2001" (it's there,all right), can any people with knowledge of the filming process tell us - is there any way this could be an optical/lens effect and not a fault of the video transfer?


----------



## Kram Sacul

To make it easier:


----------



## Sam S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12239653
> 
> 
> Going by the list so far it seems Universal is the king of putting out old transfers with excessive EE and not all of them have been confirmed yet. Going by early accounts Tremors belongs up there as well.
> 
> 
> Do any of these titles have EE or DNR?
> 
> *Dazed and Confused
> 
> 
> Fast Times at Ridgemont High*



Yes, both of these titles have EE on the HD DVD version. In fact, all three SD releases of Dazed and Confused show EE. The HD DVD is better, but it's still very apparent. I'm sorry I have no way to do screen caps, and am not near my player to give you time codes. Same with FTaRH. If someone who can grab caps has either of these, its fairly easy to spot throughout.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Just watched Bulletproof. Loaded with EE from the get go.


Title: Bulletproof

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD DVD

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: EE is visible throughout.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Why does it seem like most of these Universal catalog titles were done at the same time and on the same equipment? Compare the PQ of Mallrats to The Big Lebowski. About the same detail, same EE/Ringing.


I'm surprised Dragonheart, Daylight, and Dante's Peak haven't been brought up yet as their broadcast HD versions looked pretty lousy.


----------



## Alan Gouger

I agree with DH. While I was surprised how good it looked for the age of the film I did find it edgy. Mallrats was terrible, tons of EE. So sad because it could have been a real winner with all its colors.


----------



## Alan Gouger

A few quick solid contenders for this thread due to EE.

hese are from my collection. I have more but I want to re visit them again before before listing them as possible contenders.



Title: Top Gun

Studio: Paramount

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticeable EE ringing throughout film.

URL:


Title: Seed of Chucky

Studio: Universal

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticeable EE ringing throughout film.

URL:


Title: Army of Darkness

Studio: Universal

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticeable EE ringing throughout film.

URL:


Title: Nutty Professor

Studio:Universal

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticable EE ringing throughout film.

URL:



Title: Half Baked

Studio:Universal

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticable EE ringing throughout film.

URL:



Title: Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Studio:Universal

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticable EE ringing throughout film.

URL:



Title: Mutiny on the Bounty (1962)

Studio:Warner

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticable EE ringing throughout film.

URL:


----------



## Kram Sacul

Title: *The Departed (2006)*

Studio: Warner

Disc: BRD, HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Chapter 33

Comments: Vertical wallpaper stripes disappear unnaturally when the camera pans. DNR is thought to be on the DI and not a compression issue.

URLs: 1a / 1b , 2a / 2b


----------



## No_U-Turn

I have two more offenders:


Title: Meet the parents

Studio:Universal

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: probably an old transfer with noticeable EE throughout film. can provide timecodes, but i think it´s quite obvious

URL: -none-


Title: Erin Brockovich

Studio:Universal

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: probably an old transfer with noticeable EE throughout film.

URL: -none- can provide timecodes, but i think it´s quite obvious. can provide timecodes, but i think it´s quite obvious


Please note, i have an older Marantz VP12S2 720p DLP and a Toshiba HD [email protected] (latest firmware), so maybe someone with newer/better equipment should double check. But i´m pretty certain about these two titles though.


The question is, though off-topic in this thread, what can we do about this? Write Universal? Not buy the movies?


----------



## captaincelluloid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12195518
> 
> 
> This is a list of titles on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray who have been verified to show EE/ringing (edge enhancement, sharpening) and/or DNR (digital noise/grain reduction) processing and/or aliasing and/or ITC issues (incorrect progressive picture from film source).
> 
> 
> This list is for people who know what it is, what it looks like and have decided that they don't like it and want to avoid discs having (a lot of) it.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I'm not aware of sources elsewhere on the net that tell us if there is DNR and/or EE etc. with any kind of accuracy and reliability, title by title. This list is supposed to be such a source.



First, I agree for the need for a list like this . . . . as it helps keep the studio's collective feet to the fire. If nobody complains then they'll keep

putting out mediocre discs . . . . they are not altruists.


Second, I agree with the majority of listings here.


I would like to inject one thought into the discourse;


SOMETIMES HALOS ARE JUST HALOS . . . .


. . . . which is to say, sometimes they are not an electronic issue

and thereby sometimes not a wholly accurate indicator of the quality of a transfer.


Halos occur optically in nature around boundary areas of high contrast.


Our eyes can add halos, camera lenses can add halos,

diffusion filters DEFINITELY add halos, bad films prints add halos,

bad telecines add halos . . . and OF COURSE electronic edge enhancement

and white level push can add halos.


The worst case scenario is a combination of the above . . . . EE makes it

all much worse but again, there are often other culprits as well.


DNR can make optical halos -- IE halos ON THE FILM -- worse by

removing edge sharpness that could make the halo less defined . .


. . . and keep in mind that in general compression does not like

edges or contrast and tends to add noise around them.


So.


SOMETIMES HALOS ARE JUST HALOS . . . . not necessarily

an electronic problem.


Again, this is a really helpful list and I have used feedback like this to avoid buying certain discs . . . . I would add to please keep in mind the perspective that sometimes halos are naturally occurring optical phenomena . . . and sometimes halos are added for artistic intent . . . and sometimes

your eye adds halos.


These questions always want to asked AND ANSWERED by the studios but


SOMETIMES HALOS JUST AIN'T A PROBLEM. . . .


. . . so let's just watch the movie.


-30-


My veracity to comment comes from having worked in the camera department of one of the older films on this list. Alas, it is not as fabulous

a transfer as I would have wished . . . . but it does reasonably represent

the sense of the look of the film. The film used double fog filters thruout

-- a combo of a fog effect and a diffusion filter -- which definitely added

halos. The entire film was also post flashed which tends to add a bit of grain in the shadows.


Alas, another thing to keep in mind is that FILM IS FILM AND DIGITAL IS DIGITAL . . . . . and they don't always play well together.


I saw a 70 mm blowup of this film direct from the original 35 mm anamorphic negatives -- not from an IP -- and THAT my friends was

amazing. Yes, there were halos but they looked just great


----------



## Vincent Pereira




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12267992
> 
> 
> Title: *The Departed (2006)*
> 
> Studio: Warner
> 
> Disc: BRD, HD-DVD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR
> 
> Time Codes: Chapter 33
> 
> Comments: Vertical wallpaper stripes disappear unnaturally when the camera pans. DNR is thought to be on the DI and not a compression issue.
> 
> URLs: 1a / 1b , 2a / 2b



I've watched this scene many times, there's nothing "unnatural" about it. The camera is moving, and the background details are getting blurred as often happens during camera movement.


Vincent


----------



## Vincent Pereira

I'm guessing you're talking about *THE DEER HUNTER* and I agree, I don't see any "EE" in the screen shots linked.


Vincent



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *captaincelluloid* /forum/post/12271474
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> My veracity to comment comes from having worked in the camera department of one of the older films on this list. Alas, it is not as fabulous
> 
> a transfer as I would have wished . . . . but it does reasonably represent
> 
> the sense of the look of the film. The film used double fog filters thruout
> 
> -- a combo of a fog effect and a diffusion filter -- which definitely added
> 
> halos. The entire film was also post flashed which tends to add a bit of grain in the shadows.
> 
> 
> Alas, another thing to keep in mind is that FILM IS FILM AND DIGITAL IS DIGITAL . . . . . and they don't always play well together.
> 
> 
> I saw a 70 mm blowup of this film direct from the original 35 mm anamorphic negatives -- not from an IP -- and THAT my friends was
> 
> amazing. Yes, there were halos but they looked just great


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vincent Pereira* /forum/post/12273056
> 
> 
> I've watched this scene many times, there's nothing "unnatural" about it. The camera is moving, and the background details are getting blurred as often happens during camera movement.



They're not blurring, they're disappearing into mush. The effect is very smeary and not like photography at all.


As for The Deer Hunter slight EE is noticable at the top of these frames: http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/hddvd/The%20Deer%20Hunter/AnyC02807.jpg , http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/hddvd/Th.../AnyC02818.jpg . It doesn't ruin the transfer but it's there.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12276325
> 
> 
> They're not blurring, they're disappearing into mush. The effect is very smeary and not like photography at all.



I agree with that after checking the scene.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *captaincelluloid* /forum/post/12271474
> 
> 
> SOMETIMES HALOS ARE JUST HALOS . . . .
> 
> . . . . which is to say, sometimes they are not an electronic issue
> 
> and thereby sometimes not a wholly accurate indicator of the quality of a transfer.



Yes. So everybody is welcome to discuss specific cases and dispute current findings preferably with direct digital screen shots of telling examples.

Especially insiders involved with the transfer in question can contribute valuable information if they are inclined to do so.










> Quote:
> I saw a 70 mm blowup of this film direct from the original 35 mm anamorphic negatives -- not from an IP -- and THAT my friends was
> 
> amazing. Yes, there were halos but they looked just great



My main criterion for judging a transfer is anyway if it looks like film when it's made from a film master. So first you need to be aware of how film looks (and it can look many ways, especially if digital components are baked into the 'film' look via DI), then how digital problems look, and finally separate the two layers from each other which is indeed often not easy.


----------



## Xylon

How about *Elizabeth*?. Just watched it last night. PQ is excellent, consistent and nothing too distracting.


There has got to be some recent Universal titles that dont have EE.


----------



## Kram Sacul

How recent? Their newer titles generally look outstanding mostly because their DIs/transfers have been on state of the art equipment. It's the older catalog stuff that is really iffy because Universal seems to be unwilling to do new HD transfers. Slackers.


----------



## Penton-Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12277338
> 
> 
> How recent? Their newer titles generally look outstanding mostly because their DIs/transfers have been on state of the art equipment. It's the older catalog stuff that is really iffy because Universal seems to be unwilling to do new HD transfers. Slackers.



So, what's the excuse for the appearance of *The Italian Job*.

Hint, you might find it somewhere in this interview.
http://www.cameraguild.com/interview...transcript.htm


----------



## Penton-Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12276600
> 
> 
> Especially insiders involved with the transfer in question can contribute valuable information if they are inclined to do so.



Sorry michel, this aint TIG.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Penton-Man* /forum/post/12278717
> 
> 
> Sorry michel, this aint TIG.



Do they spill the beans there?


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12276663
> 
> 
> How about *Elizabeth*?. Just watched it last night. PQ is excellent, consistent and nothing too distracting.
> 
> There has got to be some recent Universal titles that dont have EE.



Pride and Prejudice?

Elizabeth is pretty good but still obvious EE at times.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

So does this mean these are all movies you will not watch?


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Penton-Man* /forum/post/12278701
> 
> 
> So, what's the excuse for the appearance of *The Italian Job*.
> 
> Hint, you might find it somewhere in this interview.
> http://www.cameraguild.com/interview...transcript.htm



Lousy transfer + EE = garbage. I'm sure the actual film looks good though.


----------



## Rakesh.S

someone should confirm this, but


Title: Liar Liar (1997)

Studio: Universal

Dsic: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old transfer with noticeable EE ringing throughout film. Horrible looking.


----------



## Penton-Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12279270
> 
> 
> Do they spill the beans there?



Only if one is an anonymous poster.









I thought you already knew that.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Penton-Man* /forum/post/12281099
> 
> 
> Only if one is an anonymous poster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you already knew that.



I know people usually try hard to not talk badly about the work of others, if they talk at all. Omerta.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/12279319
> 
> 
> So does this mean these are all movies you will not watch?



No. First I watch movies in the cinema too. Second one can rent or borrow. I try to not buy substandard stuff if I find out in time. Buying 'crap' promotes 'crap'.


----------



## captaincelluloid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12276600
> 
> 
> My main criterion for judging a transfer is anyway if it looks like film when it's made from a film master. So first you need to be aware of how film looks (and it can look many ways, especially if digital components are baked into the 'film' look via DI), then how digital problems look, and finally separate the two layers from each other which is indeed often not easy.



Bless you.


That post might be the single most perceptive, sensible and BALANCED -- and thereby HELPFUL -- statement regarding film transfers that I have read on this site.



In the spirit of full disclosure -- my display is a 9 inch CRT front projector - 106" screen -- which is much less

cranky about EE.


I would go so far to say that much EE artifacting is a result of fixed pixel displays . . which is NOT to say that it is the FAULT of

fixed pixel displays; it is made WORSE by fixed pixel and this is now a fixed pixel world.


Further, and from painful personal experience, I have found that early in the days of HD mastering CRT monitors

were the only thing available and we all used EE with relative impunity cuz we didn't see it artifacting on direct feed CRT. After a couple of

disasters showed up on fixed pixel displays I started using a fixed pixel monitor along with the CRT and, surprise,

using less EE . . . . and this was all for broadcast and soon after we found even MORE hidden artifacting disasters when stuff started getting compressed for DVD and the internet . . . . now most everybody will also take a look at the signal thru

real time compression to avoid problems.




Again, thanks "mhafner"


-30-






Go figure.


----------



## Vincent Pereira




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12276325
> 
> 
> They're not blurring, they're disappearing into mush. The effect is very smeary and not like photography at all.
> 
> 
> As for The Deer Hunter slight EE is noticable at the top of these frames: http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/hddvd/The%20Deer%20Hunter/AnyC02807.jpg , http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/hddvd/Th.../AnyC02818.jpg . It doesn't ruin the transfer but it's there.



Whatever the cause, it's not an artifact of the transfer/HD compression, which I thought was the point of this thread- to point out compression and/or transfer flaws. This "problem" (which I personally still think looks like normal background blurring due to the camera movement myself) is also evident on the standard-definition DVD release, and also on the Russian PAL DVD which I have. The Russian DVD is notable because it's a completely separate transfer, having been mastered to 16:9 PAL from an actual 35mm anamorphic print (oval cigarette burns at the reel changes and all) as opposed to the DI, and it shows the EXACT SAME "disappearing into mush" of the verticle stripes on the wall as the HD-DVD and region 1 standard-definition DVDs. So clearly, this "error" was evident on the actual 35mm film prints, and thus must have also been present in the original DI used to create said prints and the domestic HD-DVD and DVD versions of the film.


Re: *THE DEER HUNTER*, sorry but I don't see any "EE" in those screen shots. If there's anything there that resembles "EE", I'm going with captaincelluloid's explanation. I don't think it's a transfer artifact at all.


Vincent


----------



## Kram Sacul

The thing is it is a transfer flaw even if it occured during the film-to-DI stage, which all versions are derived from, even a funky dvd from Russia.


IMO, the decision to apply DNR to reduce noise was poor as the motion artifacts are far more intrusive than any grain this scene might've had.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12246787
> 
> 
> Hmm. I thought 2001 was EE free? Uh oh.
> 
> 
> At least it does look better than the HDNet version with it's strong halos, but not by a lot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a proper transfer of 2001 without EE or softness? Jeez, it's 70mm.



Unbelievable.


And I have heard nothing but rave reviews for this title.










That is as clear an example of EE as you will get.


----------



## Vincent Pereira




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The thing is it is a transfer flaw even if it occured during the film-to-DI stage, which all versions are derived from, even a funky dvd from Russia.



That is if it's a "flaw" at all. To my eyes, it looks like normal blurring caused by movement of the camera, and since it occurs in all versions of the film, it should not be labeled as a transfer flaw, PERIOD. Remember, early on this "flaw" was being used as ammo against the 'low bit rate VC1 encode', but the fact that it occurs in the Russian DVD that was transfered from an actual 35mm anamorphic film print proves that it has nothing to do with the codec- or bitrate thereof- at all.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> And I have heard nothing but rave reviews for this title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is as clear an example of EE as you will get.



As has been pointed out time and time again, these screen shots are from an older HD broadcast version of *2001*, NOT the HD-DVD or BD versions.


Vincent


----------



## John J. Puccio

"That is as clear an example of EE as you will get." --Rob Tomlin


Yes, in the screen shot shown above, some halos are clearly evident. However, after viewing the same scene in question again just now on HD DVD, in motion and in pause, and sticking my face about two inches from the screen to examine it, the ee on my screen is nowhere near as severe as pictured here. And from my normal viewing distance of about six feet, it's impossible to see it. What's more, my colleague who reviewed the Blu-ray edition (on his system across country from me) makes no mention whatever of edge enhancement, and gives the video a 10/10. (I noticed some slight flutterings here and there and some occasional color bleed-through, hardly noticeable, and I gave the video a 9/10.) Anyway, I would question where these screen shots came from, how the person's set was calibrated, and so on, before I would believe the ee was as bad as the pictures on this page make it look.


John


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vincent Pereira* /forum/post/12291120
> 
> 
> That is if it's a "flaw" at all. To my eyes, it looks like normal blurring caused by movement of the camera, and since it occurs in all versions of the film, it should not be labeled as a transfer flaw, PERIOD. Remember, early on this "flaw" was being used as ammo against the 'low bit rate VC1 encode', but the fact that it occurs in the Russian DVD that was transfered from an actual 35mm anamorphic film print proves that it has nothing to do with the codec- or bitrate thereof- at all.



Mhafner probably can explain it better but I think this thread is about DNR and EE flaws visible in the final product. Since the unusual quality of this particular scene in The Departed is pretty evident on the disc it should be on the list or at least noted.


There's no argument here that's it's not a compression issue and that it exists on the master DI.


----------



## 2Channel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12291019
> 
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> And I have heard nothing but rave reviews for this title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is as clear an example of EE as you will get.



Yeah, that looks bad. I'm going to rent it and check it out for myself. It seems odd that it got such great reviews.


----------



## Vincent Pereira




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *2Channel* /forum/post/12291263
> 
> 
> Yeah, that looks bad. I'm going to rent it and check it out for myself. It seems odd that it got such great reviews.



Did you even read this whole thread? To repeat yet again, the *2001* screen shots in question _*ARE NOT FROM THE HD-DVD OR BD RELEASES, THEY WERE TAKEN FROM AN OLDER HD BROADCAST VERSION OF THE FILM*_.


Vincent


----------



## Kram Sacul

Okay, I'm taking down the lone HDNet shots. It's causing too much confusion.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vincent Pereira* /forum/post/12291120
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out time and time again, these screen shots are from an older HD broadcast version of *2001*, NOT the HD-DVD or BD versions.
> 
> 
> Vincent



Sorry Vincent, I am an idiot, as I certainly didn't notice that. Seems weird to have posted a screen shot from a broadcast in a thread titled *HD Disk (HD DVD and Blu-ray) EE and DNR List*!?


I see that the capture is being removed. Good idea.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Actually they're still there besides the HDM shots for the sake of comparison.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12289791
> 
> 
> The thing is it is a transfer flaw even if it occured during the film-to-DI stage, which all versions are derived from, even a funky dvd from Russia.
> 
> IMO, the decision to apply DNR to reduce noise was poor as the motion artifacts are far more intrusive than any grain this scene might've had.



To clarify this issue I would like to say in a case where the EE and DNR come from the DI we are not blaming the 1080p mastering for this. The title with the EE and DNR still goes on the list though so people can avoid buying this disc if they dislike EE and DNR, although in such cases it may represent the intended look as created by the film makers (respectively their choice of a lesser of 2 evils).


----------



## Vincent Pereira

My question is whether the "problem" with *THE DEPARTED* is a "DNR" issue at all. The first time this "flaw" was brought up here was in a thread that speculated that the "problem" was due to the "low bit rate VC1 encode" during the scene in question. I honestly wonder whether at that point some folks didn't go _looking for (and subsequently "finding") problems that weren't really there_. The very brief blurring of the background wall stripes into "mush" doesn't look any different than the type of background blurring I see in camera movement all the time, and yet now it's being written up as a definite DNR issue that occurred during the creation of the Digital Intermediate. My question is, where's the proof?


Vincent


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vincent Pereira* /forum/post/12305890
> 
> 
> My question is whether the "problem" with *THE DEPARTED* is a "DNR" issue at all. The first time this "flaw" was brought up here was in a thread that speculated that the "problem" was due to the "low bit rate VC1 encode" during the scene in question. I honestly wonder whether at that point some folks didn't go _looking for (and subsequently "finding") problems that weren't really there_. The very brief blurring of the background wall stripes into "mush" doesn't look any different than the type of background blurring I see in camera movement all the time, and yet now it's being written up as a definite DNR issue that occurred during the creation of the Digital Intermediate. My question is, where's the proof?
> 
> Vincent



There is no hard proof for now, only experience from watching (non DI) films that motion blur does not look like that.


----------



## mhafner

Has anybody checked out "The Aviator"? Is it DNR city or not? The 35mm prints were.


----------



## Kram Sacul

I'd say the quality of that scene in The Departed is proof. Very soft and smeary. When the charaters move through the frame it's like they're moving through a liquid background. The scene directly after it has none of these issues and even shows some nice grain.


----------



## WayneL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12306943
> 
> 
> There is no hard proof for now, only experience from watching (non DI) films that motion blur does not look like that.



Is this anecdotal or are you in the business?


----------



## Captainjoe

The 40-Year-Old Virgin looks so bad! I noticed this right away when I watched the disc. This is a newer film too. Universal and some other studios need to get their **** together.


----------



## Penton-Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WayneL* /forum/post/12311715
> 
> 
> Is this anecdotal or are you in the business?



For the record, I believe that mhafner is easily qualified to make accurate statements regarding fundamental aspects like motion blur,

and for that matter, is more knowledgeable concerning EE and DNR than anyone else I am aware of that regularly posts on this forum.


He has written his own DNR filters including motion estimation, interpolation filters and has labored in digital film restoration research.


----------



## Penton-Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12306948
> 
> 
> Has anybody checked out "The Aviator"? Is it DNR city or not? The 35mm prints were.



Michel,

I don't think this is your typical example of a smeared DNR look, like with some other possible examples you have listed on page 1 suggesting over zealous post processing (i.e. classic temporal based median filtering?).


This film was indeed an anomaly and had some of the best people in the business working on it from start to end. The people involved essentially developed a way to produce the Technicolor dye-transfer process (at the bequest of Marty S.) using digital tools!


Usually in the typical DI production, the steps are color correction, rendering and film out - simple.

For this anomalous case (in the pursuit of mimicking the colors of the traditional old Technicolor dye-transfer process), the ON was color corrected and that was rendered out as a color corrected file. That file was subsequently *again* *color corrected* by the application of an additional LUT.


So, much of the film essentially had *two* color correction passes in order to get the look that Marty S. wanted. If any process involving DNR was employed somewhere in the production chain (and I'm not saying it was, Omerta







), it had to be done in order to effectively produce the ground breaking digital method for recreating the look of the old Technicolor dye-transfer process.


This just may be the most complicated and difficult DI production done to date (from a colorist's POV).

B.T.W., Robert Richardson (who worked *closely* with the colorist on the project) won the Oscar for Cinematography with his work on this film, if memory serves.


----------



## Kram Sacul

The Aviator had kind of a pasty processed look (in the theater) but I don't remember any smeary motion artifacts. Certainly nothing like that scene in The Departed.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Penton-Man* /forum/post/12314573
> 
> 
> Michel,
> 
> I don't think this is your typical example of a smeared DNR look, like with some other possible examples you have listed on page 1 suggesting over zealous post processing (i.e. classic temporal based median filtering?).



I'm not talking about the color processing. That might bring out additional noise/grain. But what I saw is not grading related (I think). The 35mm print looked really bad when skin was in motion. It looked like grain filtering with an algorithm that knows about edges and other prominent image features and makes sure the motion is correct for these, but has no clue about the rest of the image with soft detail as in faces. Faces were a mess. The effect is also visible on the DVD. Whatever it is, it looks atrocious. I was really tempted to leave the cinema.


----------



## Captainjoe

Title: Waiting... (2005)

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR (noise reduction)

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments: Even sitting at a reasonable distance, severe DNR is detectable. It looks very similar to The 40-year-old Virgin.

URLs: none


----------



## Mark_H

I can confirm Waiting... it's like watching wax work dummies on screen.


Mark


----------



## Kram Sacul

Comedies seem to get the worst treatment.


----------



## WayneL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Penton-Man* /forum/post/12314543
> 
> 
> For the record, I believe that mhafner is easily qualified to make accurate statements regarding fundamental aspects like motion blur,
> 
> and for that matter, is more knowledgeable concerning EE and DNR than anyone else I am aware of that regularly posts on this forum.
> 
> 
> He has written his own DNR filters including motion estimation, interpolation filters and has labored in digital film restoration research.



Cool


----------



## Kram Sacul

Can anyone confirm that the old and new BRDs of Robocop have EE?


----------



## Kram Sacul

More detailed entry for:


Title: *Tremors (1990)*

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Extremely DNRed imagery with EE/ringing. Just atrocious.

URLs: Screen captures


----------



## Patsfan123

Van Wilder has some bad DNR.. However I don't have screen shots like others to prove it. Also the Untouchables has been chastised for being DNR'ed to death.


----------



## John J. Puccio

"Also the Untouchables has been chastised for being DNR'ed to death." --Patsfan123


Really? Chastised by whom? "The Untouchables" is one of the best-looking HD DVDs I've wathced, and I notice that in Dave Vaughn's HD DVD review of it at Home Theater Spot he also praises the picture quality and then compares it to the BD version, which he says is identical, both of them looking great. In addition, I see that my old friend Eddie Feng at DVD Beaver thought "The Untouchables" looked excellent on HD DVD, too.


"DNR'ed to death?" Apparently, that's a good thing.







Specifically, what evils should Dave and Eddie and I be looking for in "The Untouchables" that we are not seeing, and exactly where in the film might we find them?


John


----------



## Patsfan123

I found no issue with the Untouchables as I don't have a 106" screen. I liked the way it looks too, but if you go over to the Blu-ray software forum and do some searches you will find many people unhappy with the transfer.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Mr. Bean's Holiday


Another one bites the dust.

When the reviewers mention it count on it being twice as bad as they are reporting.


Title:Mr. Bean's Holiday (2007)

Studio: Universal Studios

Disc: HD DVD

Problem:EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Finally, sharpness is strong, but it comes at a price -- edge enhancement is apparent but not excessive, so expect some noticeable halos on high-contrast areas.

URL: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1162/....html#Section3


----------



## House

Funny, I don't remember the UK HD DVD being that way... in fact I'm almost certain it didn't have any EE. Did Universal intentionally do that just for the USA release?


----------



## lyris

Alan, I heard High Def Digest mention it, but wasn't sure if it was actually there or not - have you seen it yourself?


Here's grabs from the UK disc. It's not a 10/10 transfer but it didn't look too bad to me. The glowing around the "BAGUETTE" text on the left looks to me like it's a lens effect rather than digital tampering. Maybe this is what High Def Digest are seeing? Whereas, the ringing around the computer-generated text (the credits) looks to be the result of filtering.

http://lyris-lite.net/files/bean.jpg (600kb)


Also http://lyris-lite.net/files/bean2.jpg (800kb)


I just saw that the High Def Digest comments for this title were added to the front page - are you sure we shouldn't have someone else verify it first?


----------



## Alan Gouger

I have this title on the way. Ill have it this week. Ill ask it be removed from the list if indeed it is EE free. I hope it is. As silly as this movie may be to some Im looking forward to it. I will say HDD has been spot on with reporting EE. In fact its rare they do mention it unless it is really bothersome.. Ill know soon enough. f its there I will grab a few caps. Fingers crossed.


----------



## lyris

Cool, hope it goes well. And yeah, I liked this movie a lot too - I got the HD DVD when it came out over here in August. It's really nice to have stuff other than action movies on HD.


----------



## mhafner

Payback has (obvious and ugly) DNR in one scene. The rest looks good. It's a grainy movie.

Any word on "Mr. and Mrs. Smith"? The 35mm prints had smeary DNR all over.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Michel, you didn't see any DNR on the Elizabeth HD-DVD? The screen captures posted here have a pasty quality.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12403141
> 
> 
> Michel, you didn't see any DNR on the Elizabeth HD-DVD? The screen captures posted here have a pasty quality.



Nothing obvious. It looked more video than it should but not because of DNR as far as I could see.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Guys just got my copy of Bean's Holiday (2007)


It clearly is an edgy title. Some scenes worse then others. Its not as extreme as other titles from Universal but as soon as the disc starts you know your in trouble.


Im using the Lumagen video processor with no ring processing and I had to set the sharpness to minus 4 to compensate for the edginess. Thats to bad because the entire transfer then suffers from this setting. Im also using Sonys new VW200 Lcos which is not overly sharp. I expect this would be worse on DLP.


What is a shame, people use the excuse they are adding EE to older titles yet this is a newer movie, no need for any EE. This could have been a great transfer its such a shame they feel they have to mess with it.

Its another one that I bet would pass on a flat screen yet falls apart on non CRT based FP systems


----------



## lyris

Alan, any idea how it compares to the screen grabs from the UK disc I posted?


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lyris* /forum/post/12408501
> 
> 
> Alan, any idea how it compares to the screen grabs from the UK disc I posted?



Do you have a link. I did a quick search but could not find anything, thanks


----------



## lyris

Right here:

http://lyris-lite.net/files/bean.jpg (600kb)


Also http://lyris-lite.net/files/bean2.jpg (800kb)


----------



## Rev. Nathan

Don't know if this is off-topic or not, but is banding in 2001: Space Oddesy kind of inevitable because of the use of both 70MM film AND a CineScope lens? Would seem to me the source would probably be why, lest this is a trope of 70mm-->35mm downscaling, and the copy appears to have a 35MM source...


----------



## Vincent Pereira

What do you mean by "banding"? Also, *2001* was shot using spherical lenses, no anamorphic (or "CinemaScope") lenses were used.


Vincent



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rev. Nathan* /forum/post/12453919
> 
> 
> Don't know if this is off-topic or not, but is banding in 2001: Space Oddesy kind of inevitable because of the use of both 70MM film AND a CineScope lens? Would seem to me the source would probably be why, lest this is a trope of 70mm-->35mm downscaling, and the copy appears to have a 35MM source...


----------



## Alan Gouger

lyris


I watched this movie again last night. I love the restaurant scene eating the clams.


I have to say I agree with you 100%. The EE while I do find the transfer somewhat edgy

was not intrusive. A few scenes like the ones where you see the hill tops in the back ground show some heavy EE but the rest is tolerable and far less then the others reported to be riddled with EE. I think for people viewing this on a CRT FP system the edginess I am seeing may not be an issue.

This guy cracks me up. As silly as this movie is I love it.

Take care


----------



## Kram Sacul

Title: *The Matrix (1999)*

Studio: Warner

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Comments: Slight EE/Ringing visible in certain shots

Time Codes:

URLs: Link , Link


----------



## lyris




> Quote:
> This guy cracks me up. As silly as this movie is I love it.



Me too - I loved the ending as well. Kind of strange, but I wouldn't have done it any other way.


And yeah, The Matrix! It has a ton of ringing. Couldn't believe the 5/5 reviews - don't know how I forgot to mention it.


----------



## Penton-Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12405023
> 
> 
> Guys just got my copy of Bean's Holiday (2007)
> 
> 
> It clearly is an edgy title. Some scenes worse then others. Its not as extreme as other titles from Universal but as soon as the disc starts you know your in trouble.
> 
> 
> Im using the Lumagen video processor with no ring processing and I had to set the sharpness to minus 4 to compensate for the edginess. Thats to bad because the entire transfer then suffers from this setting. Im also using Sonys new VW200 Lcos which is not overly sharp. I expect this would be worse on DLP.
> 
> 
> What is a shame, people use the excuse they are adding EE to older titles yet this is a newer movie, no need for any EE. This could have been a great transfer its such a shame they feel they have to mess with it.....



Deluxe Digital Studios - Ron Martin (V.P.)


I suspect you'll get answers from him ^ rather than excuses, as he has the experience with old (while at DVCC) and new titles. Whether that translates into results - you'll have to ask him.


----------



## amirm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12461655
> 
> 
> Title: *The Matrix (1999)*
> 
> Studio: Warner
> 
> Disc: HD-DVD (USA)
> 
> Problem: EE
> 
> Comments: Slight EE/Ringing visible in certain shots
> 
> Time Codes:
> 
> URLs: Link , Link



I don't know that you want to go after anything that has some shots that way. That would typically indicate an issue during original effects/film which is no fault of the mediums represented here. Lest we want to start complaining about exposure setting, the quality of the wood used in the set, etc.







.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Amir, that's classic EE, not any sort of photography or visual effects artifact. The shot of Keanu on the roof has a pretty noticable halo outline, especially along his right arm.


The whole transfer has ringing on the black mattes as well, a telltale sign that EE/Ringing was introduced at some point. It may not have been applied intentionally but it's there in the final product.


----------



## amirm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12475799
> 
> 
> Amir, that's classic EE, not any sort of photography or visual effects artifact. The shot of Keanu on the roof has a pretty noticable halo outline, especially along his right arm.



Yes, it does look like EE. I did not mean that it is an effect by itself. But in the process of compositing, etc, someone may attempt to sharpen the final image (or one of the layers) and as a result, create this kind of halo. They may for example be compensating for slightly out of focus/soft source.



> Quote:
> The whole transfer has ringing on the black mattes as well, a telltale sign that EE/Ringing was introduced at some point. It may not have been applied intentionally but it's there in the final product.



That would be fair game if it is the whole transfer. I was just objecting to the words used that some fames have such a problem. If so, it is not the result of telecine or encoding as they are not going to apply such selective sharpening.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Amir


I know in the past you mentioned complaints are being passed on but it does not seam like anything is changing for the better. Do you get any feedback when passing on complaints. Will these studios stop using EE at some point. Things are not getting any better.


As always, thanks for your feedback.


----------



## amirm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12476063
> 
> 
> Amir
> 
> 
> I know in the past you mentioned complaints are being passed on but it does not seam like anything is changing for the better. Do you get any feedback when passing on complaints. Will these studios stop using EE at some point. Things are not getting any better.
> 
> 
> As always, thanks for your feedback.



Our feedback loop unfortunately is one way







. And given the fact that some titles are encoded 3-4 months in advance of showing in the store, it is hard to know if the feedback was accepted or not.


What I can say is that we have gone through great lengths to demostrate what an excellent transfer looks like, and what doesn't qualify as such. We know the demonstrations have had an effect on level of awareness here. Hopefully actions have followed....


----------



## Alan Gouger

Thanks Amir


It makes you wonder if anyone actually looks at the end product. If they did, compared to a good transfer it makes you wonder how anyone with any sense doing their job could say send it out the door, looks fine







Some of this stuff is looking pretty bad.


Anyway lets hope for the better.


Thank you!


----------



## DaViD Boulet

IMO, the issue of optimal image mastering is paramount (no pun intended) with HDM. With every medium that's come before, if the studio didn't get it right, at least the consumer had the consolation that "well, it's not anywhere near 35mm release-print quality anyway" since SD formats were so limited in resolution, not to mention "the studio will probably release it again in HD, and that's their chance to get it right".


While some titles will be recycled over and over in HD with bonus material etc. (just like they were recycled on DVD over and over), many titles might not get more than one shot for an HD transfer, and maybe only one release on HDM. There are still titles that only got one shot on laserdisc that never emerged on DVD. Still titles on VHS that never showed up on DVD. There are DVDs that were released once, went out of print.


So with HDM... since we *do* have formats that *can* finally delver a reasonable facsimilie of a projected print, it's time to get it right. The first time.


Call to the studios: recycle your HDM titles again and again by providing special feature content if absolutely necessary. But give us the transparent AV qualtiy (with lossless sound) we deserve the first time.


----------



## Mark_H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12476191
> 
> 
> Thanks Amir
> 
> 
> It makes you wonder if anyone actually looks at the end product.
> 
> 
> Thank you!



That actually seems to be the problem - transfer quality is judged by somebody looking at the image (on too small a screen) and making a subjective assessment. I do not understand why there aren't quantative procedures involved to remove human subjectivity. It must be possible to design an assessment algorithm which can compare the master vs the compression and derive a quality rating based on perceptually important factors (eg detail retention, colour accuracy etc); this would effectively halt the destruction of good prints by excessive EE and noise reduction. But perhaps that would remove the "art" from the compressionist?


Mark


----------



## amirm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark_H* /forum/post/12478967
> 
> 
> That actually seems to be the problem - transfer quality is judged by somebody looking at the image (on too small a screen) and making a subjective assessment. I do not understand why there aren't quantative procedures involved to remove human subjectivity. It must be possible to design an assessment algorithm which can compare the master vs the compression and derive a quality rating based on perceptually important factors (eg detail retention, colour accuracy etc); this would effectively halt the destruction of good prints by excessive EE and noise reduction. But perhaps that would remove the "art" from the compressionist?
> 
> 
> Mark



I hear you but they are not using too small of a display. My laptop shows the issues being talked about so I know it is visible on displays they are using.


I am not trying to defend anyone but most subjective assessments of general public would show that users would prefer a sharper image with halo than one without. Just about every picture taken with a digital camera is sharpened for the same reason and too much so many times. No different than people driving distorted subs with their movies. Sometimes people prefer more of something even though it means some distortion comes with it. Think of how many people bother to set the sharpness control to where it should be.


Now, the above was a lot more necessary for SD where so much resolution was lost in the downsampling, that some sharpening was dialed in to increase the apparent resolution. Same is probably true to some extent on a 720p display where the filtering may over-soften the detail. I assure you that 99% of the people would prefer some amount of sharpening here even if it means that there are halos.


Noise reduction falls in exactly the same category. I am sure user surveys at large would show that average joe wants cleaner image with no grain. Even the people here ask for that from time to time. Remember Samsung BD player shipping with this filter always on?


The above is why this is hard. We have to convince the studios to cater to the needs of the few of us and get them to become one of us. We are making progress there but let's not assume that there is no reason whatsoever for doing what they do. Their business has driven them here for a reason. Best way to do this is to encourage them nicely and not assume that they are using cheap displays and don't know what they are doing







.


----------



## Mark_H

To borrow your photography analogy, the studios could (should) deliver the highest quality RAW file and then users could apply whatever filters they deem necessary within the players? That way we would all get the quality we want?


I guess we're getting OT on this thread now...


Mark


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amirm* /forum/post/12479638
> 
> 
> I am not trying to defend anyone but most subjective assessments of general public would show that users would prefer a sharper image with halo than one without. Just about every picture taken with a digital camera is sharpened for the same reason and too much so many times. No different than people driving distorted subs with their movies. Sometimes people prefer more of something even though it means some distortion comes with it. Think of how many people bother to set the sharpness control to where it should be.
> 
> Noise reduction falls in exactly the same category. I am sure user surveys at large would show that average joe wants cleaner image with no grain. Even the people here ask for that from time to time. Remember Samsung BD player shipping with this filter always on?.



3 rays of hope, nonetheless

- film maker approved masters without EE and DNR that the studios are legally bound to compress as is and not tinker with (e.g. film makers putting down their foots and insisting that art is not made for the lowest common denominator)

- the fact that you can have the cake and eat it too by delivering clean masters and leave the sharpening and filtering to the display chain where it belongs. People too clueless to know there are sharpness knobs and what they do are not smart enough either to see the lack of sharpening and boycott the product because of it.









- the trend to larger screens where EE and DNR become progressively more obvious and ugly to look at.


----------



## Kram Sacul

So do you think the Robocop BRD (2nd one) deserves to be on the DNR list or is it just soft?


The 1st release probably had EE but we don't have any screen captures and only a handful of people saw it. I bet it looked like the broadcast version though, which has EE.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> _By the way the EE in the broadcast pics is barely noticable. Maybe it looks worse seeing it person. The titles I am mentioning are terrible, you cant mistake it or miss it, its excessive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



Barely noticable? The bird sculpture in the boardroom shot has a big ass halo around it.


----------



## Alan Gouger

I have not seen this one. For myself I need to see motion to detect NR. Hard to tell looking at static images. Those images look fine to me.

The titles I am mentioning have excessive EE. Impossible to miss


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amirm* /forum/post/12479638
> 
> 
> I hear you but they are not using too small of a display. My laptop shows the issues being talked about so I know it is visible on displays they are using.
> 
> 
> I am not trying to defend anyone but most subjective assessments of general public would show that users would prefer a sharper image with halo than one without. Just about every picture taken with a digital camera is sharpened for the same reason and too much so many times. No different than people driving distorted subs with their movies. Sometimes people prefer more of something even though it means some distortion comes with it. Think of how many people bother to set the sharpness control to where it should be.
> 
> 
> Now, the above was a lot more necessary for SD where so much resolution was lost in the downsampling, that some sharpening was dialed in to increase the apparent resolution. Same is probably true to some extent on a 720p display where the filtering may over-soften the detail. I assure you that 99% of the people would prefer some amount of sharpening here even if it means that there are halos.
> 
> 
> Noise reduction falls in exactly the same category. I am sure user surveys at large would show that average joe wants cleaner image with no grain. Even the people here ask for that from time to time. Remember Samsung BD player shipping with this filter always on?
> 
> 
> The above is why this is hard. We have to convince the studios to cater to the needs of the few of us and get them to become one of us. We are making progress there but let’s not assume that there is no reason whatsoever for doing what they do. Their business has driven them here for a reason. Best way to do this is to encourage them nicely and not assume that they are using cheap displays and don’t know what they are doing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .




I am guessing it is seen as an advantage , their product looks sharper on the smaller monitors on display at the stores until we get it home and pop it up on the big screen.

Joe Kane himself has mentioned the monitors they are using for authoring are to small. He wants them to start using projection but with the excuses we are getting on this topic I doubt we will ever see that happen.

I would say most here on the forum ether hate EE or tolerate it but all would benefit its demise even those with the smallest of displays.

It is a shame there is no standard. For the most part we are talking only a few studios who repeatedly depend on this practice.

Reading the insider thread everything seams positive and wonderful but then we have the few studios further down the chain putting out sub par content that counters the enthusiasm in the Insider thread.

I seams no one knows what the other is doing or has any authority which explains the large quality control issue between transfers and the use of heavy edge enhancement and or NR.

If Studio *A* can repeatedly put out older titles & new titles without the use of EE then it becomes clear it is a man made injected artifact sadly ruining what HD is all about. The sooner they rid of this practice the better the format will progress and be accepted by all not just those with tiny TVs. It is not needed, this is HD


----------



## amirm

We are very aware of what Joe is trying to do, since we asked him to put together the demonstrations on his projector for studio execs to appreciate what great video is all about







. These are some of the behind the scenes things we are trying to do. The demonstrations have been very effective but I don't know about the final outcome.


----------



## mhafner

Looked finally into "Eyes Wide Shut". Oh dear. What a mess! Horrible DNR!

I only checked 10 minutes, but different spots. Looks like this transfer is screwed. I have to compare to the D-VHS recording I have. I think that one has no DNR.

Why, WB, why? "The Shining" looks so nice. And now this!


----------



## Oliver Klohs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12479910
> 
> 
> - the fact that you can have the cake and eat it too by delivering clean masters and leave the sharpening and filtering to the display chain where it belongs. People too clueless to know there are sharpness knobs and what they do are not smart enough either to see the lack of sharpening and boycott the product because of it.



I joked about this with Bjoern Roy back in the DVD days - give those people who want all the nasty things we hate appropriate options on their equipment and be done.


To try to cater to those who prefer an immensly processed image I suggest to add three buttons on their remote:


- clean picture: Adds DNR

- sharp picture: Adds EE

- fill the screen: zooms into picture and removes black bars from all movies wider than the academy ratio, also removes sidebars from 4:3 content


And now the studios should just try to make movies look like film on HDM, even if they are older than a year or two.


Of the last 15 non-animated movies I watched on HDM 5 had very obstrusive processing, mostly both DNR and EE related and three of these movies I did not even finish because of it. This is hardly better than what I was used to with DVD.


----------



## Rakesh.S

This is probably meaningless to joe six pack but is it possible to put real time filtering on hd and blu players?


By doing it this way, there's no need to re-encode the movie. Just have an "unfilter" option...put an educational featurette about DNR (and other nonsense) on the disc.


Average user plays the DNR'd version and people that care can undo it, without needing a second encode on the disc.


----------



## Kram Sacul

DNR can take a lot of cpu power to pull off in real time if you want "good" results, like with ffdshow.


If I'm not mistaken don't some players have a NR feature?


----------



## Vincent Pereira

This talk reminds me of the "soft picture" mode on some Pioneer LaserDisc players back in the day, which was included to compensate for folks used to VHS who felt that LD images were "too sharp"!


Vincent


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rakesh.S* /forum/post/12507720
> 
> 
> This is probably meaningless to joe six pack but is it possible to put real time filtering on hd and blu players?
> 
> By doing it this way, there's no need to re-encode the movie. Just have an "unfilter" option...put an educational featurette about DNR (and other nonsense) on the disc.
> 
> Average user plays the DNR'd version and people that care can undo it, without needing a second encode on the disc.



If you mean that one should put the unprocessed version on the disc and have DNR and EE options in the player, yes, that is doable. Just put one of the new video chips in there (Gennum etc.). They have DNR and EE functions built in. The other way around does not work (remove the DNR and EE in the master with filters in the player).


----------



## mhafner

Watched the whole EWS BD and did some comparison with the D-VHS from HBO. Neither is what we want. The HBO has the WB vertical filtering/jaggies problem, is a bit sharper and has less to no DNR, but compression issues. The HD-DVD and BD have DNR and are a bit softer. The disks need a remaster without DNR.


----------



## FrancescoP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12500878
> 
> 
> Looked finally into "Eyes Wide Shut". Oh dear. What a mess! Horrible DNR!



Do we have any screenshot to confirm that?


----------



## DaViD Boulet

I haven't seen the HD DVD/BD yet (I don't like the movie), but folks at HTF are also reporting distracting DNR on Eyes Wide Shut.


WB has done this to far too many DVDs. Apparently, the "this DNR dial goes to eleven" techs are working in the HD division as well...


----------



## MSmith83

I watched my Blu-ray copy of _Scary Movie_ the other day, and it has some of the worst DNR that I have ever seen. It got some good reviews because it has the "pop" that many are looking for, but small details are either completely missing or go in-and-out because of the terrible filtering. This definitely belongs on the list.


Title: Scary Movie

Studio: Disney

Disc: Blu-ray

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Everything looks smooth and wax-like. Small facial details are nonexistent, and other details such as clothing patterns are either completely filtered-out or continually pop in and out of the picture.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FrancescoP* /forum/post/12528538
> 
> 
> Do we have any screenshot to confirm that?



I can't do screenshots but I put in some time codes.


----------



## Mark_H

It's starting to look like a smaller list to maintain would be "films WITHOUT EE and DNR"?










Mark


----------



## Kram Sacul

It seems like 3 Studios are behind most of these problems: Warner, Universal and to a lesser extent Paramount. If we could get them to stop using really old transfers then I think HDM will be on the right track.


----------



## mhafner

Watched Spiderman 1 and unfortunately it has DNR/EE issues too. Probably baked into the DI so Sony can't fix it. It's a 5 year old DI and it shows. Very uneven looking. Some shots are really poor, others look like this year's stuff. The first 10 minutes or so and the last scene are among the poor looking material. In between it's up and down. Motion looks often weird with softening and jerking artifacts. Anyone else see the problems?


----------



## mhafner

Can anybody confirm that "Dirty Dancing" is a horrendous transfer full of DNR, EE, Aliasing and Banding?


----------



## desmond212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12542277
> 
> 
> Can anybody confirm that "Dirty Dancing" is a horrendous transfer full of DNR, EE, Aliasing and Banding?



yes.


----------



## desmond212

T3 on BD seems to be a 1080i encode...


----------



## No_U-Turn

_Title: Simpsons movie

Studio: Fox

Disc: Blu-ray (UK)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: EE is visible throughout.

URLs: http://home.worldwidedvdforums.com/f...p?f=59&t=14940 


This is second hand information i have learned at another forum. EE has been confirmed by a few members, who know claim to what it is. Sadly.


Please note the screenshots are from the UK version of the film. I don´t know if it´s the same encode as the U.S. version._

*This is NOT confirmed, see Alan Gouger's post # 147 in this thread!*


----------



## MovieSwede

Im not 100% sure it really is EE on the Simpsons. It resembles compression artifacts that usually can happens on edges.


But as I said, im not sure.


EDIT


By closer look at it, I would say the screencaps shows both EE and Artifacts. But this wasnt something I saw during the movie. (I didnt look for it either)


----------



## No_U-Turn

i think the two big pictures at the bottom of the linked site are showing mostly compression/scaling artefacts. But if you open one of the full screenshots and look at them at 100%, it looks like EE to me. I would love to be proven wrong here tbh, i am really looking forward to this film and i hate EE.


----------



## lgans316

Are we expecting Pan's Labyrinth to enter the DNR-ed list ?


----------



## Alan Gouger

The Simsons does not have any EE. Its flawless. I am not doubting people have systems that adds EE. My system does not and that movie is about as EE free as the best of them. Anyone saying the Simpsons has EE should be seeing EE on a ton of others far more so and reporting them as their system is coloring what they are seeing.

I am watching this one at 8 feet wide and I can even turn up my sharpness on this one which even then adds no ringing.


----------



## No_U-Turn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12563177
> 
> 
> The Simsons does not have any EE. Its flawless. I am not doubting people have systems that adds EE. My system does not and that movie is about as EE free as the best of them. Anyone saying the Simpsons has EE should be seeing EE on a ton of others far more so and reporting them as their system is coloring what they are seeing.
> 
> I am watching this one at 8 feet wide and I can even turn up my sharpness on this one which even then adds no ringing.



Thanks for the info Alan! You make me a happy camper.


----------



## Alan Gouger

The best place to show off ringing are bright scenes with letters.

Here are few caps, 8 feet wide and Im zooming in on the image.

Just for the record Im going 24 out of the pioneer HD1 into the Crystalio 3400 24 out to the Sony VW200.

The Crystalio has been reported to add some ringing according to Greg Rogers review and still at 8 feet wide there is still no ringing. If I use my Lumagen with its no ring scaling this is as smooth as butter.

People reporting ringing on this title I have no doubt they are seeing what they are seeing but it is being introduced somewhere in *their* video chain.


Those same people reporting this title should really be seeing ringing far worse on many other titles that are boarder full of EE that they are not complaining about. Makes you wonder the agenda


















Same image with my projectors sharpness set to full


















Same image with my projectors sharpness set to full


















Same image with my projectors sharpness set to full










Here you can see I can replicate the same ringing in the pictures the few posted by turning up my sharpness and putting it on full something no one whould ever do or should do










Even with my sharpness on full on most scenes is still hard to see and remember I am zooming in on an 8 foot image for these. At normal viewing and on a smaller display you would never see it. Rest assured this is a great transfer.

So those who are seeing ringing it is their own fault or their systems fault.


And to rap this up here is what someone posted. Compare to my pics.

Then look at his coments after the pic where he says this came direct off the player..id say something is very wrong here..looks like 480 not 1080.

















This is a new movie, why anyone thought it would need EE, I don't know.


Please note, my screen caps are straight from the BD, no cables, no cameras, no displays to introduce any errors.

(a bit of jpeg compression artifacts maybe as I don't use PNG)


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Alan, can you take the trouble to take pics of the same frames that others are using to show the EE (like the last one above)?


----------



## No_U-Turn

fyi there is a thread and discussion about potential EE on the Simpsons movie here at AVS in this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=881341&page=5 


i had my info from BD.com and didn´t see the AVS thread until now


----------



## desmond212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12563177
> 
> 
> The Simsons does not have any EE. Its flawless. I am not doubting people have systems that adds EE. My system does not and that movie is about as EE free as the best of them. Anyone saying the Simpsons has EE should be seeing EE on a ton of others far more so and reporting them as their system is coloring what they are seeing.
> 
> I am watching this one at 8 feet wide and I can even turn up my sharpness on this one which even then adds no ringing.



+1.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12563799
> 
> 
> Alan, can you take the trouble to take pics of the same frames that others are using to show the EE (like the last one above)?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post12564025


----------



## mhafner

I'll make a decison once we have uncompressed (or losslessly compressed) direct digital 1080p screenshots in Xylon quality to examine. Anything else won't do.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Some of the captures here and here are killing me. There's obvious mosquito noise and the EE looks like ringing, like what's seen in Shrek 3 but much much worse. I really hope this is not what's actually on the disc as this movie is a must buy for me. The h.264 trailers sure didn't have these problems.










There's no reason why this title shouldn't be 100% pristine, compression and PQ-wise. What's the file size? If you can clearly see artifacts on a cell animated frame then the bitrate must be rediculously low.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Here we go guys. I have no EE at all, impossible if its on the disk. The last picture posted is of the one posted trying to say this movie has EE.

The last picture is the original cap posted to show the EE on his system. You can see a huge difference between his and mine. I think I am even zooming way further. The transfer is clean. I believe peoples systems are introducing some nasty artifacts.


Ok I think I am close enough to the original frame on this one: one.









Here it is zoomed in from my camera. All shots are about 15 feet away to get the entire screen in.










Heres a zoom from my first full screen shot zoomed from the original picture:










Here is the second screen cap to compare. This shows the full screen about 15 feet back:









Here is a zoom from my camera:









Here is my zoom from the original picture above for comparison:









Original zoom posted above


















If the ringing shown in the few caps before mine were on the disc then my setup would display the same. I have to set my sharpness to full to get anywhere close to what they are posting. As you can see even zoomed the image is free of ringing.


----------



## Kram Sacul

It's possible your setup could be masking/softening any artifacts. That being said I do see signs of ringing on the vertical line to the right of Bart in the second pic. There's actually several lines of ringing and it matches what I see in this capture:










If you look closely all the lines in the capture have this weird type of 3-tiered ringing. Just unbelievable and totally unacceptable. The source is pristine and free of this garbage.


----------



## Alan Gouger

The picture you just post is a zoom from my smaller picture posted to the forum. Anyone with a PC or Mac can do the sasme and you will see the zooming process of a posted picture will produce ringing on any picture. It is not accurate. Your zoomed picture of my picture is not accurate.

Please post a picture to this thread of a reference cap and I will do the same and show you have ringing










My system does not soften anything. If you read my previous post in the Simpson thread I use the Crystalio VP that according to Greg Rogers adds ringing. If I hook up my Lumagen wth Ring Free scaling this transfer is beyond state of the Art. Not just myself but most people in that thread are reporting no EE at all, top transfer. Its not the disc









The last picture in my post is horrendous. If it is on the disk my picture should still show EE but it is just not there. It is also not there from any of the review sites. It is also not there for most in the main Simpson thread. It was only a few who say they see it on their system. It is clear their system is introducing it.

Its as smooth as babys a$$. The EE you say you are seeing keep in mind this is zooming the original picture of the entire screen. The zoom factor is huge beyond the original cap and still very smooth. I also put this through my 7" CRT and again smooth.

Something is wrong with those few saying they are seeing serious EE & ringing.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Your first paragraph is confusing the hell out of me. I didn't post any zoomed in pics, just the above shot.


Alan, how do you explain the EE/Ringing in the above direct digital capture?


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12565739
> 
> 
> Alan, how do you explain the EE/Ringing in the above direct digital capture?



I can only ask how most others do not have the ringing in his cap









People asked me to post picture of the same frame which I did. No EE. On my system it is reference. Most people in that thread also say its reference no EE. Then he comes along at the end of the thread. To me his picture looks like its 480. It looks far worse the just EE. I cannot answer questions about his cap as I do not know any details or who he is or if he is credible I can only post pictures from my system 8 feet wide without a drop of EE


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12565739
> 
> 
> Your first paragraph is confusing the hell out of me. I didn't post any zoomed in pics, just the above shot.
> 
> 
> Alan, how do you explain the EE/Ringing in the above direct digital capture?



Are you speaking of my cap or the original. I was addressing thinking the original.

The picture you posted is larger then my original. Some processing has taken place.

If you were speaking of mine here is the blowup from that same picture and I just do not see any ringing


----------



## Kram Sacul

I was speaking of both. I really think your setup or your camera is softening what's on the disc. That or there's a ringing-free discs floating out there. I'm not sure which is more disturbing.


As for this shot posted by benes, there's EE/Ringing and compression artifacts galore. What the hell went wrong?


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12565840
> 
> 
> I was speaking of both. I really think your setup or your camera is softening what's on the disc. That or there's a ringing-free discs floating out there. I'm not sure which is more disturbing.
> 
> 
> As for this shot posted by benes, there's EE/Ringing and compression artifacts galore. What the hell went wrong?



Myslef and most others in that thread have a edge free disc









As far as benes his pic does not even come close to a true representation of what I am seeing.

As far my camera you can see a history of screen caps over the last year by this camera. It is fully capable of showing EE sadley. In this case it is just not there.

So we have a ton of happy people on the forum who say no EE and we have several review sites who say no EE then we have one guy come out of know where and post what looks like 480










All I can say is this is a tier 1 transfer










By the way if you get a chance please post a picture to this thread of a cap

from BD or HD DVD you feel is reference with no EE from your system.


Thank you!!


----------



## lyris

I don't think that's edge enhancement on those Simpsons UK screen shots (it's certainly not edge enhancement on its own). It looks like brickwall filtering which looks similar, especially on fairly simple material like The Simpsons. I have to say, it's a shame so many people are educated about EE, but are a lot less informed of the equally destructive loss of detail that occurs due to filtering.


When my (US) BD of The Simpsons Movie arrives, I'll get some frame grabs from the source. Right now Alan's images are putting a smile on my face. I'd be astonished if they managed to mess up an all digital 2D animated transfer like that.


----------



## trbarry

It seems possible the black edge lines of the Simpsons are so highly detailed they would cause minor artifacts on a 720p display, depending upon how well the down-scaling was handled.


- Tom


----------



## lyris

Those frame grabs are full 1920x1080 (actually 1088, since AVC encodes need to have pixel dimensions that are multiples of 4 - the last 8 lines are usually cropped) grabs from the disc. This likely means one of the following:


1. The encode that's on the UK disc is different, and Fox have messed it up.


2. The user who captured the images' AVC decoder software is adding the ugly ringing.


3. Something else out of the user's control has altered the images in this way.


Edit: that said, I can see the tiniest trace of ringing in Alan's image here , above and below the lip. As a new owner of a Sony VPL-VW60, I've learned that the optics of a projector can be quite forgiving in masking these sort of filtering artefacts, particularly in HD. I look forward to getting my own copy of this to check it out.


----------



## lyris

Thanks for the correction Benes, everywhere I've read stated that 1088 was required for AVC. Certainly all of the Windows-based decoders I've come across have done it this way, so probably a bad assumption on my part.


Just looked at your screen shots and yep, it certainly looks like they've tampered with this one. Not killer, but very disappointing. There would surely be absolutely zero need to filter this material, especially not with bit-rates as high as the one you've posted.


It's a shame, I imagine the equipment the studios have is doing this without them realising it. It's sad that one of the downloadable Quicktime trailers doesn't have the problem but the BD does.


----------



## dr1394




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lyris* /forum/post/12567483
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction Benes, everywhere I've read stated that 1088 was required for AVC.



It does require 1088. Here's the syntax from Ratatouille.

Code:


Code:


C:\\xfer>h264_parse bits0001.mpv
h264_parse - mpeg4ip version 1.5.0.1
Nal length 6 start code 4 bytes
 ref 0 type 9 Access unit delimeter
   primary_pic_type: 0
Nal length 47 start code 4 bytes
 ref 3 type 7 Sequence parameter set
   profile: 100
   constaint_set0_flag: 0
   constaint_set1_flag: 0
   constaint_set2_flag: 0
   constaint_set3_flag: 0
   level_idc: 41
   seq parameter set id: 0
   chroma format idx: 1
   bit depth luma minus8: 0
   bit depth chroma minus8: 0
   Qpprime Y Zero Transform Bypass flag: 0
   Seq Scaling Matrix Present Flag: 0
   log2_max_frame_num_minus4: 12
   pic_order_cnt_type: 0
    log2_max_pic_order_cnt_lsb_minus4: 12
   num_ref_frames: 4
   gaps_in_frame_num_value_allowed_flag: 0
   pic_width_in_mbs_minus1: 119 (1920)
   pic_height_in_map_minus1: 67
   frame_mbs_only_flag: 1
     derived height: 1088


----------



## FrancescoP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benes* /forum/post/12567466
> 
> 
> I used the exact same software setup that mighty Xylon uses so I can assure you nothing is being introduced here.



What software are you using? Does it feature a sharpness setting?


----------



## mhafner

I'm going to add it now based on http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i13...1222011011.PNG 

If someone can provide the same frame 1:1 direct digital without the ringing we'll 'renegotiate'.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Where's the DNR artifacts in Spider-man?


----------



## lgans316

I didn't notice DNR artifacts in any of Spiderman movie. I thought the film grain blended well with the picture especially in SM-2. The production values become impeccably projected in SM2.


How about Pan's Labyrinth ? Looks like the New Line encode is DNR-ed to a noticeable extent in contrary to the French release.


----------



## lyris




> Quote:
> What software are you using? Does it feature a sharpness setting?



None of the Windows AVC decoders (or VC-1 decoders for that matter) feature a Sharpness setting. Once again, the ringing in these pictures is almost certainly not caused by edge enhancement.


Even if it was, for Benes' screen shots to have it, he would have to explicitly request that the software add it.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12568525
> 
> 
> Where's the DNR artifacts in Spider-man?



In the house of Osborne there are these pillars with vertical lines. Watch them in motion. There are other examples. Either that or my PS3 now uses secretly DNR since firmware 2.1.









Spiderman 2 looks quite some better than 1.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12569694
> 
> 
> In the house of Osborne there are these pillars with vertical lines. Watch them in motion.



People think because a title is soft it is automatically NR, not always true. Motion is a sure way to see NR in action


----------



## Alan Gouger

Regarding S. On my system it remains one of the cleanest EE free titles in my collection. At most I would accept someone saying it was edgy but not to contain EE.

I am also not discounting the digital cap as I have no explanation for it other then that is not what I am seeing. No where near.

I have also submitted evidence supporting my findings.


I do not think this title should be added until we get some more reports. If only the few guys on the forum who have the means to provide digital caps are taken seriously over everyone else ( im the EE hater doctor







) then this list is meaningless and serves no purpose other then to those few who call the shots. People do not watch digital caps and I am not convinced they are 100% reliable. I also do admit to not having the knowledge to dispute them. If at this point only those votes from the digital guys will count why continue with the list.

My vote still stands this is a EE free title and I think the title should not be included until we get a more evidence. There are more people saying it is EE free then the few who are reporting it.

Also should there be a break down of EE. Should they be classified, edgy verses full blown EE etc?


----------



## Penton-Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12570343
> 
> 
> People think because a title is soft it is automatically NR, not always true. Motion is a sure way to see NR in action



But even *that*, is not infallible because one still has to be able to differentiate it from camera motion blur, as Vincent Pereira alluded to earlier.

And if one has first hand knowledge that a particular scene(s) used a wide shutter angle (and complementary lighting on the set) it definitely is not necessarily DNR.


P.S.

I am really being sent over here to do battle on behalf of colorists all over the world.








http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3038


----------



## rover2002




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Penton-Man* /forum/post/12573293
> 
> 
> But even *that*, is not infallible because one still has to be able to differentiate it from camera motion blur, as Vincent Pereira alluded to earlier.
> 
> And if one has first hand knowledge that a particular scene(s) used a wide shutter angle (and complementary lighting on the set) it definitely is not necessarily DNR.
> 
> 
> P.S.
> *I am really being sent over here to do battle on behalf of colorists all over the world*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3038



But i thought you guys already thought Smurf-ray had one, yes?

I guess not . . . .


----------



## Kram Sacul

Why?!?!?!


Title: * Pan's Labyrinth (2006) *

Studio: New Line

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR and possibly EE

Time Codes: Whole Movie

Comments: US BD has DNR, French HD-DVD does not

URLs: Link , Link


----------



## mhafner

The German BD of Pan looked clean to me. Very nice. I'll have to recheck to be sure.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Penton-Man* /forum/post/12573293
> 
> 
> P.S.
> 
> I am really being sent over here to do battle on behalf of colorists all over the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3038



If you have input from the people who worked on transfers/encodings by all means bring it on. We don't claim to be infallible. If something has a better alternative interpretation than ours we want to hear it.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12570554
> 
> 
> Regarding S. On my system it remains one of the cleanest EE free titles in my collection. At most I would accept someone saying it was edgy but not to contain EE.
> 
> I am also not discounting the digital cap as I have no explanation for it other then that is not what I am seeing. No where near.
> 
> I have also submitted evidence supporting my findings.



Because we can't go see other people's displays in the end we have to rely on the unmanipulated direct digital stills from the disc and what we see on our own system. I don't have the Simpson disc so I have to rely on the stills. The shots show ringing. 3 explanations for you seeing no ringing:

- your disc has none, there are different versions of the disc (unlikely)

- the discs have none, the screen shot had somewhere ringing added during/after AVC decompression (can be tested with other discs)

- your system does not resolve the ringing enough to make it visible to you (I see faint ringing on all your shots, by they way).

So for the time being the challenge is to present a ringing free direct digital 1080p still. Stills with ringing we have now.


----------



## FrancescoP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12575372
> 
> 
> Why?!?!?!
> 
> 
> Title: * Pan's Labyrinth (2006) *
> 
> Studio: New Line
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR and possibly EE
> 
> Time Codes: Whole Movie
> 
> Comments: US BD has DNR, French HD-DVD does not
> 
> URLs: Link , Link


*Blu-ray USA vs French HD DVD*
http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/...885_panbd1.png 

http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/...887_panbd2.png 


Also, I own the european HD DVD and I can confirm the grain is preserved.


----------



## Alan Gouger

At this point the list is now flawed & completely subjective.

So we are now adding titles that have been challenged by majority that say no EE in favor of a zoomed digital cap.

My system is indeed capable of showing ringing on discs that have it & I am the first to complain about the slightest ringing on any title.

Simpson's: More say it does not have EE yet those people including the evidence Ive submitted have been discarded.

I showed no EE in my pictures not only at *8 feet wide* but *zoomed*









EE is something if there easily shows up from normal viewing distance and cannot be filtered out.


While they have their place majority people do not watch digital caps. Just as every satisfying projector or TV can be pronounced defective when put through paces with test discs ( which we do not watch them but they also have their place ) other viewing conditions must also be taken into consideration and not ruled out and count just as liable.


I included pictures that were zoomed by a factor of 15. People then zoomed them furtherer and said see I think I see it even though most people in that thread say it is not there.

Someone shows a zoomed digital cap and now the rest of us don't count. Trust me I know what EE looks like







I know this is weak but even highdefdigest who has been reporting EE reported the transfer as flawless. If this disc is labeled EE even though most people say it is not there, then this now changes how we have to look at all other titles, under a microscope.

For instance days ago I posted Transformers on my system shows edginess. Its worse then Simpsons so we might as well add that to this list. The edginess is visible without any zooming and can easily be scene if comparing side by side to Simpson's.

Seeing as majority opinions from people noted to know the subject mater nor do pictures submitted supporting the lack of, then the validity of this list is lost.


We have plenty of support *Here* that question or say no EE. Lets not confuse compression artifacts or noise as EE. We also have support the other direction providing digital caps who say it does. If this title showed EE under normal viewing conditions I doubt we would have those in this thread established within the forum laying their reputation on the line who in the past have started threads reporting titles with EE commenting the title as EE free.

If EE were clearly visible everyone would be seeing it beyond digital caps. A title ether has it and all will see or it does not.

At this point this title has enough debate both ways, it does not belong in the list.


Moving forward if titles that show no EE under normal viewing conditions and reported by majority as so have to be zoomed by a large factor to show theres something there, noise of some sort, and that qualifies a title then we will probably find most titles qualify moving forward.

Ive taken the liberty to add the following title. It truly does indeed show ringing beyond the Simpson's movie.






Title: Transformers ( 2007)

Studio: Dreamworks

Disc: HD DVD (USA)

Problem: Edginess EE

Time Codes: Whole Movie

Comments: US version contains slight edginess when zoomed.

URLs:


----------



## FrancescoP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12575699
> 
> 
> At this point the list is now flawed & completely subjective.



We should use only direct screengrabs, not photos. Photos are subject to 4 levels of tampering:


- HD player (post-processing)

- HD Display (sharpening or unsharp masking)

- Camera (optical distortion, color distortion, ccd matrix interpolations)

- jpeg compression (averaging filtering, macroblocking)


I suggest to remove all entries not based on direct screengrabs evidence.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FrancescoP* /forum/post/12575863
> 
> 
> We should use only direct screengrabs, not photos. Photos are subject to 4 levels of tampering:
> 
> .



As I pointed out they are not 100% reliable. For instance in this case we have a few digital caps that when zoomed to the extreme show noise that is not showing up as EE on the screen.

This is what is being disputed. Its not EE.


----------



## trbarry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FrancescoP* /forum/post/12575863
> 
> 
> We should use only direct screengrabs, not photos. Photos are subject to 4 levels of tampering:
> 
> 
> - HD player (post-processing)
> 
> - HD Display (sharpening or unsharp masking)
> 
> - Camera (optical distortion, color distortion, ccd matrix interpolations)
> 
> - jpeg compression (averaging filtering, macroblocking)
> 
> 
> I suggest to remove all entries not based on direct screengrabs evidence.



Ordinarily I'd agree, at least for when we are trying to compare relative amounts of DNR, detail, or color fidelity. Any photos will have, at the least, a bit of softening in the lens.


But here Alan's photos are demonstrably BETTER than the direct screen caps. This suggests something else going on in the chain of creating 'direct' caps (bypass loop filter?). Until this can be properly explained we would be foolish to ignore Alan's photos.


Many of us would practically kill to have a system that good.


- Tom


----------



## FrancescoP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12565803
> 
> 
> If you were speaking of mine here is the blowup from that same picture and I just do not see any ringing



I see some ringing, only softened:


----------



## Alan Gouger

Yes but that picture is a tiny part of a full frame that was zoomed x15 that is completely invisible under normal circumstances and now you are blowing it up even further. This is becoming comical.

You also are zooming a picture that has been processed several generation and you grabbed it from within the post. The original shows no EE, none.

I can find all kinds of artifacts on any title if I zoom it to these extremes.


Have you read the posts people saying they do not show ringing on their system










At 8 feet wide this title has no visible EE. Taking a tiny porting of that frame & zooming it by 20x you will find crap on any title










As I mentioned if thats the technique to be used to judge titles then I have a whole list to add that most will not be happy with but I garanty you I can find noise and ringing if I zoom them enough.


I do not know of anyone who would watch a title in massive zoom mode.


Reading the last few pages most people think it is a great transfer with no EE. Then a few think it is something else but not EE. There is a very small group zooming mass amounts saying its EE, its terrible its the end of the world







and many of them have yet to see the transfer.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=881341&page=8


----------



## Alan Gouger

Here is a picture I grabbed off the forum. Its 2002 Space Odysee.


Full of EE that is clearly visible with no zoom nessasary.


Using your technique this will give us reason to add every title.

This one should be added by the way.


----------



## Kram Sacul

2001 has been on the list for awhile. There are people that dismiss the EE/ringing on that on as well.


Alan, do you think the direct screen captures are not accurate or do you think there are EE/ringing-free discs put there?


----------



## trbarry

I would propose we not label something as having a ringing problem if it is not visible without zooming, upscaling. However getting very close to a large (or any size) screen does count.


- Tom


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FrancescoP* /forum/post/12575571
> 
> *Blu-ray USA vs French HD DVD*
> http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/...885_panbd1.png
> 
> http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/...887_panbd2.png
> 
> Also, I own the european HD DVD and I can confirm the grain is preserved.



Sad that studios are allowed to tamper like this with finished masters.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12575937
> 
> 
> As I pointed out they are not 100% reliable. For instance in this case we have a few digital caps that when zoomed to the extreme show noise that is not showing up as EE on the screen.
> 
> This is what is being disputed. Its not EE.



Not EE, ringing. EE and ringing is not the same. While EE can add ringing other filters which are not meant to sharpen the picture (downsampling, upsampling) can add ringing too but not EE type haloes. The ringing is probably due to downsapling from 2K to 1080p or some similar processing step.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/12575699
> 
> 
> At this point the list is now flawed & completely subjective.



The only objective proof for ringing are direct digital 1:1 stills via a capturing solution that has to be tested for not adding anything that is not on the disc. All other evidence is subjective and can serve only for preliminary conclusions. Highly unsuitable are snapshots of screens as there are simply too many variables at play here.

For EE it's more complicated as there are different causes possible for EE like 'artifacts', some of them from the original film (so no EE at all involved).


----------



## TheLion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12582448
> 
> 
> Sad that studios are allowed to tamper like this with finished masters.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12582461
> 
> 
> Eek. Plastic city. Shameful.



Right. Sad thing is no matter how shameful a given transfer is some people still keep defending or even praising it. That's why bad practises like obsessive DNR will likely never stop.


Michel, you mentioned your German BD/HD-DVD of Pans Labyrinth looks significantly better and shows no signs of "plastic" DNR look? Please verify this again! Thanks alot.


Greetings from your neighborhood aka Austria.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/12582784
> 
> 
> Michel, you mentioned your German BD/HD-DVD of Pans Labyrinth looks significantly better and shows no signs of "plastic" DNR look? Please verify this again! Thanks alot.



I watched the German BD again. I tried to pay attention to DNR issues. But if you have seen the film you know how emotionally powerful it is and image quality details are least on my mind watching this film. Don't sue me if I missed some problems. Some shots look DNR processed on this version too. But most of the film looks great and has no DNR problems. Some shots have elevated black levels. Having not seen the US version I don't know about better, but if that one has DNR all the time this one is better indeed.


----------



## Kram Sacul

It's back.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benes* /forum/post/12835386
> 
> 
> Excellent. Thank you for restoring this thread.



Definitely. It's a great resource.


----------



## Kroenen

I also want to thank Alan and the Mods for restoring this thread.


----------



## lgans316

Horray. It's back. Please add the New Line version of Pan's Labyrinth to top of the DNR list.


----------



## Kroenen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12841506
> 
> 
> Horray. It's back. Please add the New Line version of Pan's Labyrinth to top of the DNR list.



The list is alphabetized. So PL is right where it should be.


----------



## John J. Puccio

When I first saw "Pan's Labyrinth" on the big screen, I was not imipressed by the picture quality. It had an overly glassy, glossy, "plastic" look to it. Now, I own both the French/Spanish version and the new American version (but not the German), and not only do they look identical to each other, they look exactly like I remember seeing the movie in a theater. What exactly are some of you using as a reference here?


John


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John J. Puccio* /forum/post/12841974
> 
> 
> When I first saw "Pan's Labyrinth" on the big screen, I was not imipressed by the picture quality. It had an overly glassy, glossy, "plastic" look to it. Now, I own both the French/Spanish version and the new American version (but not the German), and not only do they look identical to each other, they look exactly like I remember seeing the movie in a theater. What exactly are some of you using as a reference here?
> 
> John



The UK and German Blu Ray disc. See examples 1 and 2 in first posting here for with and without DNR example.


----------



## No_U-Turn

Just wanted to say thank you to the people responsible for allowing this thread to be brought back. It´s a really great resource.


I am glad, i don´t have any new titles to add to the list at this point.


----------



## TheLion

I just want to chime in about the Simpson's BD.


I can personally confirm that this "transfer" shows one of the most distracting ringing/halo artifacts I have ever seen - and that is throughout the entire movie.


Granted - I have an unusually revealing setup - Sharp Z20k 1080p DLP on a 10 feet wide Studiothek 130 G3 - BUT this kind of ringing should be readily visible on mediocre setups sitting a few screen widths away as well...










I am very puzzled about Alan's comments. The direct digital screen grabs released so far show the exact same ringing I see on screen. On a big screen and in motion it is even worse though...


I optimized my setup for not introducing any EE/ringing/halos by itself btw. 1:1 pixel mapping, no scaling, no digital filters,... This is not an issue of an individual setup - just an issue with how revealing the setup is and how discerning your eyes are...


That being said - I still cannot understand Alan's comments regarding this issue...he has "the setup" and probably is as sensible to this issues as it gets...

















Alan, are you still using a 720p 3-chip DLP? Is it "thinkable" that scaling "hides" the ringing in this case?


----------



## Kram Sacul

I think Paramount is just suffering from "US - Universal Syndrome". Basically it's grabbing an old transfer off the shelf and putting it on a disc, no matter how it looks. It's infected every studio: Warner, FOX, etc. Sony got over it though and Disney seems immune. We really need captures of Scary Movie though


I'm still disturbed by the whole Simpsons Movie ringing. What kind of filter or piece of equipment could cause such ringing?


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12845444
> 
> 
> I'm still disturbed by the whole Simpsons Movie ringing. What kind of filter or piece of equipment could cause such ringing?



Resampling filter. Brickwall low pass filter.


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12845444
> 
> 
> I think Paramount is just suffering from "US - Universal Syndrome". Basically it's grabbing an old transfer off the shelf and putting it on a disc, no matter how it looks. It's infected every studio: Warner, FOX, etc. Sony got over it though and Disney seems immune. We really need captures of Scary Movie though



I wouldn't say that Disney's "immune" to these problems, although they do seem to be better than other studios in this regard. The DNR in _Scary Movie_ is atrocious, as is the DNR and edge enhancement in Disney's UK release of _Con Air_.


I am VERY happy with how they handled the UK releases of _Crimson Tide_, _The Rock_, and _Air Force One_. These are perfect examples of how catalog titles should be delivered on HDM.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/12847124
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say that Disney's "immune" to these problems, although they do seem to be better than other studios in this regard. The DNR in _Scary Movie_ is atrocious, as is the DNR and edge enhancement in Disney's UK release of _Con Air_.
> 
> 
> I am VERY happy with how they handled the UK releases of _Crimson Tide_, _The Rock_, and _Air Force One_. These are perfect examples of how catalog titles should be delivered on HDM.



There is fairly bad EE in Disney's HSM2 as well.


----------



## eric.exe

Add IMAX: Roving Mars Blu-ray


Has INSANE amounts of DNR. It seriously looks like a cartoon.


----------



## jonnyozero3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12846842
> 
> 
> Resampling filter. Brickwall low pass filter.



I want to add my vote into the group who *do not* see any ringing while viewing the Simpsons BD on their setup. I just spent 10+ minutes going frame by frame. It definitely isn't there for me.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonnyozero3* /forum/post/12851265
> 
> 
> I want to add my vote into the group who *do not* see any ringing while viewing the Simpsons BD on their setup. I just spent 10+ minutes going frame by frame. It definitely isn't there for me.



1080p set up? HDMI connection? 1:1 pixel mapping?...


----------



## No_U-Turn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12854177
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonnyozero3* /forum/post/12851265
> 
> 
> I want to add my vote into the group who *do not* see any ringing while viewing the Simpsons BD on their setup. I just spent 10+ minutes going frame by frame. It definitely isn't there for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1080p set up? HDMI connection? 1:1 pixel mapping?...
Click to expand...


I saw that this has been added about the Simpsons BD in the OP. I can see the ringing very clearly on my setup as well, which is


720p DLP (Marantz VP12S2)


----------



## Kram Sacul

re: people not detecting the ringing The Simpsons Movie


A lot of people couldn't see the jaggies on the horizontally filtered Warner titles as well and those are much more obvious than the ringing on The Simpsons Movie BRD. I imagine on a 720p set The Simpsons Movie looks clean.


----------



## lyris




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12846842
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm still disturbed by the whole Simpsons Movie ringing. What kind of filter or piece of equipment could cause such ringing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resampling filter. Brickwall low pass filter.
Click to expand...


Thanks mhafner, this is what I've been saying - people need to understand the difference betwen edge enhancement and filtering. It was allowed to totally ruin DVD and the same can't happen for HDM.


----------



## Mark_H

In my system there is ringing on The Simpsons BD. Sony BDP-S1->1080i->Lumagen ProHDP->1080p->Projection Design Cineo 3+ 1080p DLP


Mark


----------



## mhafner

Started to watch "Heroes":
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/849/heroess1.html 

...However, by far the biggest irritant with these transfers is noise....


Uh, no. Not to me. The by far biggest irritant with these transfers is the thick EE they applied regularly, giving the show often a coarse video look. EE is not even mentioned in the review. Small-screen-sit-far-away-syndrome?


----------



## Kram Sacul

Peter Bracke likes to sit far away. How else can you explain his scores for the filtered Warner titles and Traffic? What a joke.


----------



## TheLion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *No_U-Turn* /forum/post/12854308
> 
> 
> I saw that this has been added about the Simpsons BD in the OP. I can see the ringing very clearly on my setup as well, which is
> 
> 
> 720p DLP (Marantz VP12S2) no scaling involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anybody who uses hardware decoding (STB BD player) and a native 1080p display and in fact does see excessive ringing??? Which player is it?
> 
> 
> Or asked the other way round - is there anybody with software based decoding (HTPC solution, PS3) and a 1080p display and doesn't see any ringing? Which codec exactly?
> 
> 
> We just have to clarify this...


----------



## Mark_H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12865149
> 
> 
> Peter Bracke likes to sit far away. How else can you explain his scores for the filtered Warner titles and Traffic? What a joke.



Agreed. Only thing his reviews (and that site in general) are useful for are knowing the HD version of a film exists...


However, Joshua Zyber is now reviewing for the site - and finally they have a set of eyes which can see problems.


Mark


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/12865203
> 
> 
> Is there anybody who uses hardware decoding (STB BD player) and a native 1080p display and in fact does see excessive ringing??? Which player is it?



See posting Mark_H above.


----------



## TheLion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12865369
> 
> 
> See posting Mark_H above.



Upps. Sorry about that.


So in the end the most likely explaination is -> the excessive ringing is there and some just don't see it - for what ever reason (just like MANY many customers (and we are talking AVS members here) consider Newline's Pans Labyrinth of reference PQ without a hint of "waxy plastic faces", Traffic HD-DVD perfectly fine and Batman Begins "tack sharp"...) A digital screen cap is as much proof as there is.


----------



## desmond212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/12865203
> 
> 
> As strange and unlikely as this may sound but can there be some thruth behind this statement. Is it possible that the Simpsons BD release uses certain AVC parameters (due to the special content - almost like cell animation) for the encode that causes ***SOME*** decoders to introduce these artifacts???
> 
> 
> About the "software decoder" comment - All I can vouch for is that with a PS3 (->software decoder) the excessive ringing is VERY obvious and it is NOT introduced by my setup per se (ergo: not a single other title ever shows ringing caused by my setup - not even test charts). This is also with pixel-to-pixel mapping -> 1080p chain -> no scaling involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anybody who uses hardware decoding (STB BD player) and a native 1080p display and in fact does see excessive ringing??? Which player is it?
> 
> 
> Or asked the other way round - is there anybody with software based decoding (HTPC solution, PS3) and a 1080p display and doesn't see any ringing? Which codec exactly?
> 
> 
> We just have to clarify this...



How likely is that two separate implementations of the same codec have the same bug? I just don't think that this is software vs. hardware issue, is there a correlation between ringing and 24fps?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/12866170
> 
> 
> Upps. Sorry about that.
> 
> 
> So in the end the most likely explaination is -> the excessive ringing is there and some just don't see it - for what ever reason (just like MANY many customers (and we are talking AVS members here) consider Newline's Pans Labyrinth of reference PQ without a hint of "waxy plastic faces", Traffic HD-DVD perfectly fine and Batman Begins "tack sharp"...) A digital screen cap is as much proof as there is.



I think the issues with Batman Begins and Traffic are much more obvious than the problems with Pan's Labyrinth. I think viewers will become more familiar with what DNR looks like (after viewing threads like this), and subsequently be able to spot it much quicker than they are now. The same thing happened with EE on DVD's.


----------



## Kram Sacul

What's wrong with Batman Begins besides being soft?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12873051
> 
> 
> What's wrong with Batman Begins besides being soft?



That's not enough?


----------



## hollywoodguy

Please add The Wild Bunch (Warner).


EE throughout. A real pity, since it looks very good otherwise. A very nice restoration. (EE noted here , though it's more severe than the review lets on. No EE noted here .)


What's heartbreaking about these things on HDM is how unlikely it is that the movies are EVER going to be redone on HDM, or an even higher quality consumer product, for that matter.


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12874682
> 
> 
> That's not enough?



Well you mentioned it with Traffic. Batman Begins isn't _that_ bad is it?










Speaking of bad... Scary Movie captures

*Holy $#*!.* Worse than Tremors and the HDNet 2001 combined. I mean, what the hell is *THIS?!?!*


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12876725
> 
> 
> Speaking of bad... Scary Movie captures



You should see it in motion. It truly is a scary movie.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/12876725
> 
> 
> Well you mentioned it with Traffic. Batman Begins isn't _that_ bad is it?



Hell no!


----------



## Kram Sacul

The worse thing with those Scary Movie captures is that I actually remember how nice and grain-free the theatrical print I saw was, 7 years ago! It looks like the HD transfer is that old as well. Bad Disney, bad.


----------



## Rakesh.S

are those really BD screenshots of Scary Movie?


That is horrendous...it looks like a VHS upconvert.


----------



## lgans316

I would like to know if DNR has been applied on Kung Fu Hustle.


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Peter Bracke* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The only irritant I could find is some edge enhancement, resulting in some visible halos. Otherwise, when it comes to picture quality, 'Scary Movie' is a top-drawer catalog release.



Absolutely pitiful.


----------



## benwaggoner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12874682
> 
> 
> That's not enough?



If it's what the master looked like, than it's certainly enough to keep it off the DNR list.


I really worry that an expectation that every title will "pop" will result in MORE EE in order to give that sharp popping look, even if it wasn't present n the source.


There's plenty of titles that are getting called out as having DNR here that I know didn't get DNR in post at least (I don't have any insight into the telecine workflows for most stuff).


----------



## MSmith83





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benes* /forum/post/12994211
> 
> 
> According to lgans316 a Japanese MPEG-2 broadcast of Batman Begins looked superior to the HDDVD. Maybe he can tell us more and perhaps provide some screencaps.



I remember viewing a 1080p trailer of _Batman Begins_ that had more high frequency detail and grain than the HD DVD. This is not to say that the HD DVD looks bad, it's just considerably different from the trailer.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benwaggoner* /forum/post/12994011
> 
> 
> If it's what the master looked like, than it's certainly enough to keep it off the DNR list.
> 
> 
> I really worry that an expectation that every title will "pop" will result in MORE EE in order to give that sharp popping look, even if it wasn't present n the source.
> 
> 
> There's plenty of titles that are getting called out as having DNR here that I know didn't get DNR in post at least (I don't have any insight into the telecine workflows for most stuff).



Since you quoted me in your post, I will just chime in by saying I don't really have a opinion on whether 1) Batman Begins looks like the master 2) Batman Begins has had DNR applied.


All I *do* know is that it looks soft. Why it is soft I do not know.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/12994239
> 
> 
> I remember viewing a 1080p trailer of _Batman Begins_ that had more high frequency detail and grain than the HD DVD. This is not to say that the HD DVD looks bad, it's just considerably different from the trailer.



Yes. I have seen the 1080p trailer many times in Sony showrooms and the HD DVD version is nowhere close it in clarity and grain. I recently sold my old DVR as I am planning to get a HD DVD / BD HDD DVR provided I get the nod from my wife.


----------



## benwaggoner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12995152
> 
> 
> Yes. I have seen the 1080p trailer many times in Sony showrooms and the HD DVD version is nowhere close it in clarity and grain. I recently sold my old DVR as I am planning to get a HD DVD / BD HDD DVR provided I get the nod from my wife.



Seems just as plausible that the trailer was sharpened as the movie was softened.


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benwaggoner* /forum/post/12995204
> 
> 
> Seems just as plausible that the trailer was sharpened as the movie was softened.



The trailer I saw was downloaded from the internet. I believe it was from Microsoft's HD trailer site. It's possible that it was sharpened, but there's no mistaking the film grain that was present.


----------



## benwaggoner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/12996198
> 
> 
> The trailer I saw was downloaded from the internet. I believe it was from Microsoft's HD trailer site. It's possible that it was sharpened, but there's no mistaking the film grain that was present.



I don't believe we ever had a trailer for that film on our site. Do you have a link?


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benwaggoner* /forum/post/12996506
> 
> 
> I don't believe we ever had a trailer for that film on our site. Do you have a link?



It was years ago right around when the movie was released, and I believe it was taken down. I remember it had DRM on it and a 5.1 WMA audio encode.


I did a quick Google search, and found some links where people talked about the trailer. As for what Microsoft did with it, well, that's another matter.


The following are some random links that reference it.

http://msmvps.com/blogs/chrisl/archi.../12/52431.aspx 

http://movie-list.com/forum/archive/...hp/t-8390.html


----------



## benwaggoner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/12996527
> 
> 
> It was years ago right around when the movie was released, and I believe it was taken down. I remember it had DRM on it and a 5.1 WMA audio encode.
> 
> 
> I did a quick Google search, and found some links where people talked about the trailer. As for what Microsoft did with it, well, that's another matter.



Huh. I don't recall, but that would have come out before I joined Microsoft.


That would have been using the old WMV9 (Format SDK 9.5?) Main Profile codec at 6-8 Mbps CBR, and I trust the PEP VC-1 Advanced Profile codec implementation used for the HD DVD much, much more.


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benwaggoner* /forum/post/12996587
> 
> 
> Huh. I don't recall, but that would have come out before I joined Microsoft.
> 
> 
> That would have been using the old WMV9 (Format SDK 9.5?) Main Profile codec at 6-8 Mbps CBR, and I trust the PEP VC-1 Advanced Profile codec implementation used for the HD DVD much, much more.



But, the trailer did look pretty exquisite nonetheless. No one's doubting the quality of the encodings, but rather how the source was handled prior to encoding.


There are numerous titles on HDM that have been seemingly stripped of virtually all film grain, so it would be no surprise if _Batman Begins_ also falls under this category. The HD DVD still looks great in my opinion, and is definitely a heck of a lot better than trash efforts like _Scary Movie_.


----------



## John J. Puccio

Not to change the subject, but for what it's worth, when I saw Spike Lee's "Inside Man" in a movie theater, I thought it looked grainier than practically any recent film I had seen. I wondered to myself how in the world it was going to look on disc in high definition. Then Universal released it on HD DVD, and from the snippets of it that I've seen, it has no grain in sight. And it is being hailed by many critics as one of the cleanest and best-looking high-def movies available.


This is an observation, by the way, not a criticism. Whatever Universal did to the picture, it seems to have improved it.


About the "Batman Begins" thing: I saw the movie three times in a movie theater--twice in regular widescreen and once in IMAX. Are you folks saying that in its high-def processing, Warners removed much of the natural film grain and softened the image in doing so? After watching the movie two more times in high def, I don't see it. And some of you are saying this high-def disc version is soft because you remember seeing a high-def trailer for the movie ages ago, which you never had a chance to compare directly to the current high-def disc version? I don't find this argument persuasive. I'd need more evidence before damning a product.


John


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John J. Puccio* /forum/post/12996861
> 
> 
> Not to change the subject, but for what it's worth, when I saw Spike Lee's "Inside Man" in a movie theater, I thought it looked grainier than practically any recent film I had seen. I wondered to myself how in the world it was going to look on disc in high definition. Then Universal released it on HD DVD, and from the snippets of it that I've seen, it has no grain in sight. And it is being hailed by many critics as one of the cleanest and best-looking high-def movies available.
> 
> 
> This is an observation, by the way, not a criticism. Whatever Universal did to the picture, it seems to have improved it.



There was quite a bit of grain present in my viewing of the _Inside Man_ HD DVD. The grain isn't consistent, but it's certainly there. Universal may have cleaned it up a bit, but I don't doubt that it's a faithful presentation.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John J. Puccio* /forum/post/12996861
> 
> 
> About the "Batman Begins" thing: I saw the movie three times in a movie theater--twice in regular widescreen and once in IMAX. Are you folks saying that in its high-def processing, Warners removed much of the natural film grain and softened the image in doing so? After watching the movie two more times in high def, I don't see it. And some of you are saying this high-def disc version is soft because you remember seeing a high-def trailer for the movie ages ago, which you never had a chance to compare directly to the current high-def disc version? I don't find this argument persuasive. I'd need more evidence before damning a product.



I wouldn't have said anything unless I was really sure about the trailer having lots of film grain. It was a trait that clearly stayed in my mind. The HD DVD has very little-to-no grain and a very smoothed look. Detail is still good though. This subject has been extensively debated in a past thread, so it should be in this AVS archives if you wish to do a search. Robert Harris seemed to love the presentation, so that's an extreme mitigating factor in my mind. He did speak against the excessive DNR used for the HDM release of _The Untouchables_ when reviewers across the internet vehemently disagreed with him.


By the way, no one is "damning" a product. We are simply seeking to have a discussion as to what studios are seemingly doing to their HDM releases. _Batman Begins_ is not even a concern when considering titles like the US _Pans Labyrinth_ release, which has been slaughtered by DNR.


----------



## John J. Puccio

"...the US Pans Labyrinth release, which has been slaughtered by DNR." --MSmith83


And that's not damning a product?










John


----------



## lgans316

Batman Begins was given 720p verdict by the DU test gurus.


I watched the U.K HD DVD of Inside Man yesterday and it doesn't seem to faithfully reproduce the film grain though it still can be seen on the walls and shining metallic objects but it's still inconsistent.


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John J. Puccio* /forum/post/12997003
> 
> 
> "...the US Pans Labyrinth release, which has been slaughtered by DNR." --MSmith83
> 
> 
> And that's not damning a product?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John



I should have been more clear and said that no one is damning _Batman Begins_, the title in which you discussed. But yes, I am indeed damning undesirable efforts like _Pan's Labyrinth_. That's primarily the point of this thread, to damn products that have been proven to be tampered with in a way that enthusiasts dislike. Since I have no proof concerning _Batman Begins_, I will in no way "damn" it, especially when it looks good regardless.


----------



## John J. Puccio

"That's primarily the point of this thread, to damn products that have been proven to be tampered with in a way that enthusiasts dislike." --MSmith83


And perhaps you can see my point, too. If you're purposely going to damn a product--tell all the world that a studio has virtually ruined it through EE or DNR or some other filtering--then I think you had better have more proof than simply saying such-and-such a movie doesn't look good to me. You need to have had access to the original print and been able to compare it to the disc master. Or you need to have recently seen the movie in question in a theater, preferably several times, in order to make your comparisons. Or, at the very least, you need to be willing to listen to the several filmmakers who have posted in this thread who have basically challenged some of its negative assumptions.


I don't disagree with your right to make any allegations against a bad transfer you choose. But it seems to me that some people here are willing to damn a product with insubstantial evidence, simply on their "word" or on their personal feelings about a disc's reproduction rather than on solid evidence.


And, by the way, I disagree about "Pan's Labyrinth" as well. I disliked the look of the movie when I saw it in a theater. The oversaturated appearance of the colors and the cold, hard, clear, glossy, glassy appearance of the whole image left me unimpressed. The picture I see in high def may not look like one of its European HD disc transfers, but it looks like my remembrance of the movie from the theater.


John


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John J. Puccio* /forum/post/13000008
> 
> 
> And perhaps you can see my point, too. If you're purposely going to damn a product--tell all the world that a studio has virtually ruined it through EE or DNR or some other filtering--then I think you had better have more proof than simply saying such-and-such a movie doesn't look good to me. You need to have had access to the original print and been able to compare it to the disc master. Or you need to have recently seen the movie in question in a theater, preferably several times, in order to make your comparisons. Or, at the very least, you need to be willing to listen to the several filmmakers who have posted in this thread who have basically challenged some of its negative assumptions.
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with your right to make any allegations against a bad transfer you choose. But it seems to me that some people here are willing to damn a product with insubstantial evidence, simply on their "word" or on their personal feelings about a disc's reproduction rather than on solid evidence.



I understand your viewpoint, and I entirely respect it. However, this thread was stickied by Alan for a reason. The OP even setup this thread as a place to prove through direct screen grabs how artificial some movies look. There's no mistaking an excessively DNR'd look that appears entirely unnatural, or a heavily aliased image that's unpleasant to those watching these releases on 1080p displays. This isn't a "tier thread" where people should say they don't like the look of a release simply because it's "too soft," yet haven't seen it in any other form. The OP of this thread recognizes various filming techniques, and will not scoff at a release simply because it appears to have been shot with soft focus.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John J. Puccio* /forum/post/13000008
> 
> 
> And, by the way, I disagree about "Pan's Labyrinth" as well. I disliked the look of the movie when I saw it in a theater. The oversaturated appearance of the colors and the cold, hard, clear, glossy, glassy appearance of the whole image left me unimpressed. The picture I see in high def may not look like one of its European HD disc transfers, but it looks like my remembrance of the movie from the theater.
> 
> 
> John



It's your right to enjoy the look of releases that have blatant image processing techniques applied to them, but that's not what this thread was setup for. _Pan's Labyrinth_ is a valid entry for the purposes of this thread. Reviewers across the internet already have their forum to discuss their opinions, but this thread caters to a different audience. This thread is not completely infallible, but nothing is in life.


----------



## John J. Puccio

MSmith83,


I'm not questioning the thread's intent or its sincerity. I'm commenting on the way the thread looks to me, the way it has turned out, which in many cases seems far from the scientific analysis that the "Science" in the title of the AVS Forum would seem to suggest.


In any case, I'm sorry for butting in. Truly, it was none of my business in the first place, and I hope there are no hard feelings.


John


----------



## MSmith83

There are no hard feelings. This thread is more scientific than any other place you'll find on the internet that critiques these HDM releases. Forget the discussions involving releases like _Batman Begins_, because the first post doesn't list it as suffering from these issues.


Through screen grabs, this thread shows evidence of image processing artifacts that virtually all online reviewers ignore or don't notice for whatever reason. If someone wishes to further ignore these proposed problems, then that's their right. My recommendation of adding _Scary Movie_, for instance, was not done on a whim. The pics provided by benes prove just how artificial that release looks. The same applies to the US release of _Pan's Labyrinth_, which is devoid of film grain that is quite evident in the pics of other versions available on HDM. Removing a film's grain structure may have been fine among this community in the VHS and SD DVD days, but it's unacceptable when it comes to HDM.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Hello John and welcome to the forum.


Topics such as this and the results listed may not be 100% scientific but because it is lacking in most on line reviews this thread serves to raise awareness to any problems or weak points in the best medium we have today as consumers. A scientific approach is not needed to see most of what is listed.

This thread not only helps to further educate people who care about video quality, after all thats what HD is all about but most important everyone hopes the studios are watching and listening & work to better the authoring process.


----------



## Bob Pariseau

For folks coming to this without much background -- folks who may be wondering whether things they are seeing in any given disc are due to the disc transfer or due to some flaw in their own viewing setup -- it would be helpful to include a short list of reference quality commercial releases in the first post. I.e., a short list of readily available commercial titles we can agree have been "done right" at least as regards these particular problems.


Such folks may still "not see" problems that are actually there. But if they DO see something, they can pop in whichever of the reference quality discs they might happen to own to confirm whether it is some flaw in their setup or something peculiar to the disc they were playing when they noticed the problem.


It might also be helpful to cull from the list a few egregious examples. I.e., a short list of discs to view if you want to learn what bad EE or DNR looks like, etc. Odds are, folks learning this stuff have already bought some of those discs and just haven't become sensitized to what to look for.


I realize there are other, more general, PQ discussion threads, but I thought a few good/bad examples called out in the first post here might be helpful. Particular if they are vetted by the folks focussing on this topic.

--Bob


----------



## mhafner

So, anybody seen "The Assassination of Jesse James..."? HD Digest says it's thick with EE. ?


----------



## desmond212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/13116519
> 
> 
> So, anybody seen "The Assassination of Jesse James..."? HD Digest says it's thick with EE. ?



yes.


----------



## flyin_frenchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bob Pariseau* /forum/post/13009712
> 
> 
> For folks coming to this without much background -- folks who may be wondering whether things they are seeing in any given disc are due to the disc transfer or due to some flaw in their own viewing setup -- it would be helpful to include a short list of reference quality commercial releases in the first post. I.e., a short list of readily available commercial titles we can agree have been "done right" at least as regards these particular problems.
> 
> 
> Such folks may still "not see" problems that are actually there. But if they DO see something, they can pop in whichever of the reference quality discs they might happen to own to confirm whether it is some flaw in their setup or something peculiar to the disc they were playing when they noticed the problem.
> 
> 
> It might also be helpful to cull from the list a few egregious examples. I.e., a short list of discs to view if you want to learn what bad EE or DNR looks like, etc. Odds are, folks learning this stuff have already bought some of those discs and just haven't become sensitized to what to look for.
> 
> 
> I realize there are other, more general, PQ discussion threads, but I thought a few good/bad examples called out in the first post here might be helpful. Particular if they are vetted by the folks focussing on this topic.
> 
> --Bob



Bob,

I've been perusing this thread with great interest. I'm not in film per/se, but am involved professionally with HDTV distribution as an engineer working the the ATSC Broadcast & Encoding side.


From what I can see, this thread is composed of individuals with the ability to discern. And the ability to articulate such discernment well. I own BD&HD-DVD equipment and would very much like to know this threads' participants' opinions of what may qualify for "reference" discs. Much of what is found in net-reviews, uses such catch phrases, as "awesome" & "totally rocks", such phrases often leaves much to be desired when fine tuning a system!

Great idea,

Regards,

D


----------



## Xylon

Using hardware and software players. 720p or 1080p. 120" projected image or 24" LCD. PS3 or MPC.


EE or _ringing_ on The Simspons Blu-ray AVC encode.


----------



## Kram Sacul

The ringing is also visible on the SkyHD broadcast version as well. It seems the shots with the finest lines are most affected:

  


Just for fun:


broadcast h.264 version w/ringing vs h.264 trailer from Apple's site

  


Doh.


----------



## Xylon

Crap in, crap out.


The master used has this.


Codecs + Master = PQ


Get ready for "remastered" re-release of HD titles.


----------



## Kram Sacul

The thing is that the "master" doesn't/shouldn't have this kind of ringing artifact. Someone goofed.


----------



## Xylon

I think Alan's Crystalio 3400 VP is doing a superb job hiding artifacts from movies. Thats why he cant see ringing on The Simpson. Which also means if he is watching SD or DVD the PQ is much more improved than the ones who don't have those expensive VPs.


My setup is:


Player------------>PJ or viewing set instead of :


Player---------->VP -------------->PJ


and I see everything. Well almost, PJs still have the tendency to "smooth out" the "rough edges". I always use my 24" Dell LCDs for more critical viewing. Those babies can show everything. Watching Tremors HD DVD on that is torture.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Yeah, it's kind of weird that a $500-1000 monitor can show more detail then a several 1000 dollar PJ. Where does the money go besides the obvious (size, black level, etc)?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13223750
> 
> 
> I think Alan's Crystalio 3400 VP is doing a superb job hiding artifacts from movies. Thats why he cant see ringing on The Simpson. Which also means if he is watching SD or DVD the PQ is much more improved than the ones who don't have those expensive VPs.
> 
> 
> My setup is:
> 
> 
> Player------------>PJ or viewing set instead of :
> 
> 
> Player---------->VP -------------->PJ
> 
> 
> and I see everything. Well almost, PJs still have the tendency to "smooth out" the "rough edges". I always use my 24" Dell LCDs for more critical viewing. Those babies can show everything. Watching Tremors HD DVD on that is torture.



I'm confused. What exactly do you think that the VP would be doing to "hide" ringing?


----------



## mhafner

Watched "3:10 to Yuma". Looks like I have to put it on the list. There is something very wrong here. One can easily see it on the opening credits and the same problem is in the rest of the film. Sometimes easy to see, sometimes not. There is lots of color fringing (especially red) and jaggies with it around hard edges. It is not a lens problem (would not matter for the opening credits). It looks more like the infamous Warner filtering problem with some titles. Something is wrong with the 4:2:0 conversion from the DI. Or the compression settings.

Anybody else see the problem? Some stills should show it clearly.

Xylon?


----------



## 30XS955 User

Does this mean we can finally agree The Simpsons has ringing?!


----------



## Alan Gouger

Can someone take a look into ID4. Watched it yesterday with a batch of other titles. While I found it an acceptable transfer it did show some "slight" ringing on my system during some of the day lit scenes. Thx.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/13275417
> 
> 
> Does this mean we can finally agree The Simpsons has ringing?!



Yes.


----------



## Xylon




----------



## patrick99

I only watched a few minutes of Gattaca last night, with all the releases yesterday, but it looked like there was pretty serious EE.


----------



## 30XS955 User




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13358305
> 
> 
> Yes. It's visible. Now I agree but to what extent will this be noticeable during live action ?



I think dozens of people have pointed it out during playback. Many asserted it was intentional and simply a byproduct of the animation style used (!). Or they implied it was caused by an uncalibrated LCD screen, you know those types right?


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13358305
> 
> 
> Yes. It's visible. Now I agree but to what extent will this be noticeable during live action ?



Using my viewing sets they are noticeable.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13231589
> 
> 
> I'm confused. What exactly do you think that the VP would be doing to "hide" ringing?



I would say that most VPs have image enhancement features that include removing noise and artifacts to name a few. I dont know exactly how Crystalio calls it for that matter.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I watched The Simpsons. It does have slight EE which is noticeable at my normal viewing distance (13.5 feet from 123" diagonal screen).


I don't know if people are using the terms "ringing" and EE interchangeably, but it looked like typical EE to me, and again, it was slight. I didn't notice any ringing.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13359670
> 
> 
> I watched The Simpsons. It does have slight EE which is noticeable at my normal viewing distance (13.5 feet from 123" diagonal screen).
> 
> 
> I don't know if people are using the terms "ringing" and EE interchangeably, but it looked like typical EE to me, and again, it was slight. I didn't notice any ringing.



Simpsons has ringing, not regular EE (regular as in white/black haloes wider than 1 pixel).


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13359088
> 
> 
> I would say that most VPs have image enhancement features that include removing noise and artifacts to name a few. I dont know exactly how Crystalio calls it for that matter.



If a general VP filter removes the ringing it also removes genuine picture detail. To remove the ringing and leave the picture alone you would need a precise inverse filter for the filter applied which caused the ringing. This filter may not be invertible so the ringing can't be removed without messing with real picture detail.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/13367471
> 
> 
> Simpsons has ringing, not regular EE (regular as in white/black haloes wider than 1 pixel).



Well, it was a halo around hard edges, so it looked like EE to me.


Define ringing.


----------



## paku

I think when people speak of edge enhancement and ringing they usually refer to the same thing.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/13379479
> 
> 
> I think when people speak of edge enhancement and ringing they usually refer to the same thing.



But apparently some view the terms as having different meanings; it would be educational for the rest of us to have the difference explained.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13379625
> 
> 
> But apparently some view the terms as having different meanings; it would be educational for the rest of us to have the difference explained.



Both refer to the visible effects of frequency manipulation (boosting). Ringing creates ghost images of edges, one or more. Standard EE rather creates thicker/harder edges with pronounced white or black outlines.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Can a movie with unintended crushed blacks be on the list? There have been reports of the German version of Pan's Labyrinth suffering from clipped shadows. I also suspect POTC: CotBP to be clipped in quite a few shots as well. Check out Xylon's pics. The dvd seems to have less shadow detail in this shot though. Go figure.


Of course we can't forget Bram Stocker's Dracula. The king of botched shadow detail.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/13385293
> 
> 
> Both refer to the visible effects of frequency manipulation (boosting). Ringing creates ghost images of edges, one or more. Standard EE rather creates thicker/harder edges with pronounced white or black outlines.



Thanks for the explanation. If someone could provide images (or links) illustrating the difference, that would really help to be able to identify when we are seeing ringing and when we are seeing EE.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/13385310
> 
> 
> Can a movie with unintended crushed blacks be on the list?.



Please, no, because crushed blacks in some shots are not a technical fault per se. Without confirmation from the film makers that it is wrong we can never be sure what is intended and what is not. That leads only to endless speculation and bickering. It belongs on another list if people are interested in that. Same as color grading choices.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Yeah, but if a version of [insert title] has crushed blacks and the other versions do not then that is clearly a screwup.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/13395108
> 
> 
> Yeah, but if a version of [insert title] has crushed blacks and the other versions do not then that is clearly a screwup.



They can't both show the film makers intentions at a given time. But which is right and did someone change its mind? Who knows...


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lyris* /forum/post/12195941
> 
> *The Fifth Element (remaster)
> 
> Disc:* BD, USA
> *Problem:* incorrect Inverse Telecine (IVTC), EE
> *Time Codes:* IVTC: 00:29:55 - look at the backs of the police uniforms. EE: throughout.
> *Comments:* Incorrect inverse telecine of 1080i source material causes Combing, will get picture soon.
> *URLs:* Soon



I don't see any combing at all.


EE is the most noticeable during vfx shots (probably in the negative). In non-vfx shots it's a little worse than The Matrix.


----------



## Denner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13358513
> 
> 
> I only watched a few minutes of Gattaca last night, with all the releases yesterday, but it looked like there was pretty serious EE.



+1


It is pretty bad, I also think that DNR is a problem in certain scenes


----------



## Kram Sacul

Sounds like they used an old transfer, or the new transfer is seriously screwed up.


----------



## Murilo

I am very curious especially in the case of pans labirynth most of you were angry at the DNR, no doubt it was a little much but the movie to me looked tier 1. Now I look at a title like 300 and the distracting film grain made the video seem unclean and distracting.


Why are people so against improving the picture by post processing, I started in home theater with scalers and post processors to tweak to make better quality picture? Im maybe not understanding this. But I come from a post processing background from dvdo to silicon optix, where I have always tweaked different aligrothams to improve picture. Noise to me is like dirt on a window, so is film grain, I want to see a movie with a clean clear view.


I dont get the complaining, sure the dnr on pans might have not been the best as the faces seemed soft and waxy but I noticed this in curse of the golden flower to, but if there was grain and little noise artifacts I promise I would have been just as annoyed and distracted watching the film.


----------



## Xylon

Not for people at AVS. _Most_ of us understand film.


Grain and all.


They can shove that DNR and EE to the collective J6P. They won't know any better.


_"OMGWTFBBQ!!! Why is there still black bars on my Blu-ray!"_


----------



## Ozymandis

You lose detail. Who wants less detail in their HD content?


300 is an extreme example, btw. Most recent films don't have that much grain.


----------



## H9K_

DNR take away some of that high definition, Why would anyone want their HD films less HD?


----------



## Murilo

Did you see the insignificant amount of detail that was removed, nothing you would notice unless staring at still picks. If that person did not even bring up the thread with still picks, which was even hard to notice in still pictures, alot of you would not have even noticed. I can say I love a clean picture. And I will always tweak my video to improve the quality. Yes to much tweaking is never good, but a little bit can really help the picture.


And even though you speak for avs forum, alot of us in video processing area have done this for years.


Silicon optix realta, and dvdo has unreal noise reduction, cadence detection, deinterlacing with very little that improves any picture.


I honestly think some of you are avs purisits, but some of you are new and unfamiliar with how important and how good post processing can be and have never looked at the video processing forum.


You just hear post processing and think someone tainted your film and become offended.


----------



## Murilo

Not to mention films are not always flagged properly, the untouched film is not always best.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/13493930
> 
> 
> I dont get the complaining, sure the dnr on pans might have not been the best as the faces seemed soft and waxy,



You just answered your own question with the above comment.


If i wanted to see waxworks i'd buy House of Wax or visit Madame Tussauds.


----------



## Murilo

But the point was obviously would you rather see the grain and dirt on the picture, and as mentioned there was only a small amount of detail removed you could only see in still frames,The grain versions were not quite as bad but still looked somewhat soft and waxy, except with grain over it to which just distracted me to.


----------



## lgans316

If the subtle grain was there in the master then it should have been there to an extent on the Blu-ray. Grain structure retention is of paramount importance to the overall definition of the picture. Removal of grain in excess can result in loss of texture details.


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/13494063
> 
> 
> Silicon optix realta, and dvdo has unreal noise reduction, cadence detection, deinterlacing with very little that improves any picture.



That's where the disconnect is. Noise reduction and edge enhancement post-processing in today's video processors are commonly applied by people like me to SD DVDs only, because SD DVD is already a much less than ideal source. SD DVDs are commonly packed with edge halos and noise other than grain that look terrible when scaled to the native resolution of our displays.


There should be no need to apply these techniques to Blu-ray movies, where high frequency details and film grain ought to be faithfully captured from the get-go.


Those who want DNR or excessive edge enhancement on their BDs should invest in one of these processors so the studios don't do it before delivery. That would be win-win.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/13494139
> 
> 
> That's where the disconnect is. *Noise reduction and edge enhancement post-processing in today's video processors are commonly applied by people like me to SD DVDs only, because SD DVD is already a much less than ideal source. SD DVDs are commonly packed with edge halos and noise other than grain that look terrible when scaled to the native resolution of our displays.*
> 
> *There should be no need to apply these techniques to Blu-ray movies, where high frequency details and film grain ought to be faithfully captured from the get-go.*
> 
> 
> Those who want DNR or excessive edge enhancement on their BDs should invest in one of these processors so the studios don't do it before delivery. That would be win-win.



Thank you.


Horrible DNR and EE list stickified thread with *PIX* to illustrate WTH are we talking about 



Pan's Labyrinth comparison *PIX* between DNR "waxy look" loss of DETAIL against non-DNR fine detail preserved with grain intact 

*You tell me, you tell me with a straight face ANYONE will even consider the US release version is acceptable or improved over the EU version.*


Do you want that in your high defintion movies? Anyone?


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13494095
> 
> *If the subtle grain was there in the master then it should have been there to an extent on the Blu-ray. Grain structure retention is of paramount importance to the overall definition of the picture. Removal of grain in excess can result in loss of texture details.*



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Details, details, details.


----------



## mhafner

Reminder: This thread is not for discussing what DNR is or if it's good or bad. There are other threads for this (see first posting).


----------



## Kram Sacul

Hot Rod was apparently mastered in bad lcd mode. Odd.


----------



## Kram Sacul

That's more like the ringing seen on The Simpsons Movie. Also notice how the horizontal amplitude is much worse on the letters of the title.


----------



## paku

To me it looks very grain-less and plastic-y too. Even without the horrible EE it would still be pretty bad.


----------



## Captainjoe

That master used for American Psycho is pretty old. It was used on the first DVD release I believe. I have both the original and the new UNcut transfer plus the Blu-ray transfer and all appear to have that same ringing and dirt/specks. Plus it also has a waxy texture to it as paku pointed out. Typical DNR.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/13569243
> 
> 
> That's more like the ringing seen on The Simpsons Movie. Also notice how the horizontal amplitude is much worse on the letters of the title.



No, no, it's just a trendy new font called EE-Ring-Vert-666.


----------



## lgans316

I am not sure about the Jaggies on 3:10 to Yuma but Jaggies were easily noticeable on Next (U.K Blu-ray) in couple of scenes. It looked ugly in one scene and mild in another scene.


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benes* /forum/post/13643110
> 
> 
> This now makes 4 brand new films with the same issue (1408, 3:10 to Yuma, Hot Rod, Next). What the hell is going on at these transfer houses?



I'd say incorrect downconversion from the 2k DI to 1080p using some crappy scaler. And of course no one notices.


----------



## maxleung

benes, seriously all those titles have the same issue? Geez - that is horrible. I thought 3:10 to Yuma looked "wrong". Something is off with the colors - it looked like excessive dithering to me (ie. the sky has weird colored sparklies - although to be fair that would be muted on my DLP while much more pronounced on my LCD display).


Remember the benwaggoneer thread with the dithering examples? It looks like a mild form of 4 bit dithering hehehe.


----------



## xradman

I thought AVP:R had extensive DNR throughout the movie. The faces, when visible through all the darkness, had artificial waxiness and pumped up colors.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13697975
> 
> 
> So is Golden Compass going to be added in the DNR list ?



I don't add anything unless it's reported in this thread or I have seen it with my own eyes.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maxleung* /forum/post/13644764
> 
> 
> benes, seriously all those titles have the same issue? Geez - that is horrible. I thought 3:10 to Yuma looked "wrong". Something is off with the colors - it looked like excessive dithering to me (ie. the sky has weird colored sparklies - although to be fair that would be muted on my DLP while much more pronounced on my LCD display).
> 
> Remember the benwaggoneer thread with the dithering examples? It looks like a mild form of 4 bit dithering hehehe.



No dither. Y and U and V are out of sync somehow. Like some filter swapped them around or moved one component by some delta. That stuff like this passes quality control (is there any?) is depressing.


----------



## ryoohki




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xradman* /forum/post/13694797
> 
> 
> I thought AVP:R had extensive DNR throughout the movie. The faces, when visible through all the darkness, had artificial waxiness and pumped up colors.



If there's one thing is this transfert is Detail and grain.


The only thing that i don't like is the arficial darkening of the movie, that was completly uncalled for.. but if the director's wanted this (and they mention it in the Making of) well can't say anything.


----------



## ryoohki




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/13699514
> 
> 
> I don't add anything unless it's reported in this thread or I have seen it with my own eyes.



GC have DNR. Much like Pan Labyrinth. But there DNR artifact in it (Patch of Grain moving in a weird way). Other than CGI animals, people face are pretty much porcelain. The thing is... is it New Line or the CGI Effect house that did this..


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ryoohki* /forum/post/13802266
> 
> 
> GC have DNR. Much like Pan Labyrinth. But there DNR artifact in it (Patch of Grain moving in a weird way). Other than CGI animals, *people face are pretty much porcelain*. The thing is... is it New Line or the CGI Effect house that did this..



The main problem is with close-ups of Kidman. Hard to know at what point in the process this was introduced.


----------



## ryoohki

What to see DNR in action


Twister.. that's one good example. No detail whatsoever. Clean Picture..


DNR Artifact o'plenty at 1:33:00 scene (precisely at 1:33:26) check the gray sky next to the Twister. There a Swarm of weird moving patch of grain. The thing is. The first DVD release is grainy but also have ton of scratch and dirt.


This one doesn't have much scratch in it (saw about 5 white dot that's all) but it too soft..


----------



## lgans316

Thanks ryoohki. My guess seems to be correct.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post13742528 


Let's see how Universal delivers Twister on Blu-ray overseas.


----------



## mhafner

Twister is DNRed. Will add it once I have seen the whole film.

There are obviously now new DNR systems out there that no longer have glaring problems with textures in motion. They get it quite right except for difficult patterns that have not much to track well (human skin!). You still can tell DNR is used by the unfilmlike overall smooth look lacking HF grain and some unnatural looking skin in motion.


----------



## mhafner

Added Unbreakable to the list: EE.


----------



## mhafner

Added "The 6th Day (2000)" for EE.


----------



## Jason One




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eric.exe* /forum/post/12851110
> 
> 
> Add IMAX: Roving Mars Blu-ray
> 
> 
> Has INSANE amounts of DNR. It seriously looks like a cartoon.



I second this. The BD must have been done by the same people who did Scary Movie.


Title: Roving Mars (2006) 

Studio: Disney

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Visible all the time

Comments: Massive digital noise reduction greatly reduced details

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 


These were the only captures I could find online, but I think the first one at least shows the problem. It looks much worse when you're actually watching the disc.


Also, how is the Evil Dead II BD not on this list? It's the king of horrible DNR.


----------



## lgans316

May I know why Twister is not added to the DNR list ?


----------



## paku

Just a heads up: Robert Harris has reviewed The Longest Day over at HTF and says it appeared heavily de-grained with a wax-figure look.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/13948166
> 
> 
> Just a heads up: Robert Harris has reviewed The Longest Day over at HTF and says it appeared heavily de-grained with a wax-figure look.



That is just brutal. If Harris says it I believe it without question. Will Fox do this to other older titles with a heavy grain structure...


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13946954
> 
> 
> May I know why Twister is not added to the DNR list ?



I have it and after watching it I will add it (if the DNR is there indeed).


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13951687
> 
> *CRANK - features excessive edge enhancement that was intentionally added by its filmmakers, but nets a 4 out of 10 rating due to its ugly appearance*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/writings/hdimage.html
> http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc..._is_and_w.html
> 
> 
> Please be informed that the author/publisher of this site is an extremely credible person.



I have added it. I disagree with some of Wiggles' rankings but the EE on Crank is undeniable (Black Hawk Down 4/10? Superman Returns 6/10?...).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benes* /forum/post/13958980
> 
> 
> BTW I pulled out The Descent BD today and noticed it has the same transfer issue as 3:10 to Yuma. Its basically impossible to see though during the movie itself.



What's up with that?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

He already said it is basically impossible to see during the movie itself.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13959248
> 
> 
> He already said it is basically impossible to see during the movie itself.



Since visiting AVS my eyesight seems to have improved and be good enough to capture any minor artefacts.


----------



## MovieSwede




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/13953036
> 
> 
> I have added it. I disagree with some of Wiggles' rankings but the EE on Crank is undeniable (Black Hawk Down 4/10? Superman Returns 6/10?...).



Yes, he did have some very strange conclusions.


----------



## mhafner

Patton DNRed as well.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...n-blu-ray.html


----------



## JBlacklow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benes* /forum/post/13958980
> 
> 
> And yet its still "Recommended". I respect the guy but has he EVER given a negative review?



It's recommended because it's unknown when there will be another HD transfer done.


BTW, why do several films unreleased on BD claim the discs have DNR/EE? This includes:


Caddyshack

The Perfect Storm

Tremors

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)


Until these titles have been released, this should be fixed.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JBlacklow* /forum/post/13970384
> 
> 
> It's recommended because it's unknown when there will be another HD transfer done.
> 
> 
> BTW, why do several films unreleased on BD claim the discs have DNR/EE? This includes:
> 
> 
> Caddyshack
> 
> The Perfect Storm
> 
> Tremors
> 
> Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)
> 
> 
> Until these titles have been released, this should be fixed.



Especially since Perfect Storm is getting a new transfer.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/13970151
> 
> 
> Patton DNRed as well.
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...n-blu-ray.html



I am not sure if you have watched Patton but to my eyes I couldn't spot any major application of DNR like Pan's Labyrinth, Twister or Face/Off. It may be on the levels of Starship Troopers or Casino Royale.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JBlacklow* /forum/post/13970384
> 
> 
> BTW, why do several films unreleased on BD claim the discs have DNR/EE? This includes:
> 
> Caddyshack
> 
> The Perfect Storm
> 
> Tremors
> 
> Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)
> 
> Until these titles have been released, this should be fixed.



Fixed.


----------



## paku




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13973687
> 
> 
> I am not sure if you have watched Patton but to my eyes I couldn't spot any major application of DNR like Pan's Labyrinth, Twister or Face/Off. It may be on the levels of Starship Troopers or Casino Royale.



If it was transferred from 65mm film where the grain is finer you will naturally not have to employ DNR as harshly to get rid of it all, or rather the side-effects will not be as bad. But it's clearly been de-grained, maybe just with a lot better an algorithm than those other examples. Robert Harris says there is not a trace left that would suggest it was shot on film, and looking at these screenshots (albeit downscaled to 720p) that certainly seems to be the case, and characters all look a bit mannequin like.


----------



## lgans316

The titles you mention seems to be skillfully filtered or DNR-ed. I don't think WB DNR-ed every title but we have to be quite careful while judging them. Let's see how the Dutch / Nordic version of Aviator which features DTS-HD MA looks in comparison to the U.S version.


SD DVD comparison is out here.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...dvd_review.htm 


mhafner,


Please add *Con Air* to the EE list. Not as bad as Tremors but still noticeable.


----------



## aaaaaa

google this: "grain removal blu-ray"


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13987450
> 
> 
> Please add *Con Air* to the EE list. Not as bad as Tremors but still noticeable.



If you want something added please post the details here.


----------



## Brian81

Hi, I don't have screencaps but I do believe that Under Siege 2: Dark Territory HD DVD has some very slight aliasing. It's almost barely noticable, unless you look at it from very close (unrealistic viewing distances). It's not anything like Next or the The Fugitive. The image is very crisp looking (not like it was artificially sharpened however) and it is not soft like most titles are, where if it was, it would probably mask all of it. I noticed this from looking at text and the end credits. I almost don't want to bring it up because I don't want to deter anyone from purchasing this title.


----------



## Brian81

Also, on Mallrats, I don't think this title looks bad. I didn't notice any glaring EE until the very end scene where Jay and Silent Bob are walking away with the monkey. Mallrats doesn't have anywhere near the best PQ out there, but I don't see the EE being as bad as people make it out to be (my opinion).


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/13988707
> 
> 
> If you want something added please post the details here.



Sorry. I can only say as I don't have a proper camera to capture and highlight the EE.


It doesn't take more than 5-10 mins to find out that EE and Halos were noticeable on Con Air.


----------



## MovieSwede

It seems like HDD agrees with Igans



> Quote:
> There are a few lingering problems, but most stem from the fact that the film hasn't been remastered specifically for high definition. I was distracted by heavy and frequent edge enhancement, a bit of source noise in the bright sky, and a handful of scenes that wavered ever so slightly. While this transfer could be a tad better, it could be a whole lot worse.



Wonder why so many mid 90is Bruckheimer movies has this?


----------



## MSmith83

I have the UK version of _Con Air_, and it's loaded with both EE and DNR. It's one of the worst cases I've seen, but certainly not as bad as the _Scary Movie_ BD. I assume that the US version is the same, so I suggest the following entry.


Title: Con Air (1997) 

Studio: Disney

Disc: BD (UK and maybe US)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Frequently shows up throughout

Comments: There are often thick edge halos in combination with a significantly smoothed, plastic look.

URLs:


----------



## Alan Gouger

In case it has not been mentioned yet

Title:Short Circuit (Blu-ray)

Studio: Image Entertainment

Problem: DNR

Time codes: entire movie

Comments:The worse case of NR Ive ever seen. Indoor scenes are acceptable at times. Outdoor shots are completely wiped clean leaving waxy faces and no fine detail on anything. This is consistent through out the entire movie.


----------



## mhafner

Maybe this is the reason why Short Circuit is so cheap.


----------



## msgohan

 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1034623 


Can you please let me know where you see this DNR happening? I don't see great detail on their faces, but I figured that was owing to its age or photography.


Also mhafner, I have shots of The 6th Day if you want to use any of them.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msgohan* /forum/post/14003529
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1034623
> 
> 
> Can you please let me know where you see this DNR happening? I don't see great detail on their faces, but I figured that was owing to its age or photography.



At 8 feet wide it is impossible to miss it. As stated by a few in that thread all faces are waxy, outdoor scenes are loaded with NR.

The original film had detail but yes, due to age its master probably required cleaning up hence our discussion. Clearly not up to HD standards but as mhafner pointed out the price reflected this.


----------



## msgohan

Again not doubting you, I don't have a giant screen. Do you think the really grainy shots (some of which are outdoors, in lower light) had even more to begin with?


----------



## mhafner

Added Twister.


----------



## lgans316

mhafner,


Do you think The Shining in DNR-ed or filtered ?

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcom.../18.21-new.jpg 
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20PDVD_008.jpg 


FYI : The BD is from the remastered version.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14030461
> 
> 
> Added Twister.



EE, DNR, or both?


----------



## lgans316

I think primarily DNR. Doesn't deserve to be called Remastered. Let's see how Universal delivers Twister overseas.


Any feedback on The Shining ?


----------



## MSmith83

I saw _The Shining_ on HD DVD not too long ago. I don't think it belongs on the list. If there is any DNR, it's so small that it doesn't take away from the movie looking like film. In my opinion, it is a very good effort from Warner.


----------



## msgohan

This isn't exactly a novel idea so I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone do it yet (and wonder if there's a reason why...). I played around with excessively sharpening Xylon's Starship Troopers comparisons to clearly see the difference in compression artifacts and grain retention, and I was amazed by how well the grain in the VC-1 was reproduced even under such close scrutiny.


I was thinking this could be applied to checking for DNR. This should be a valid method since as I understand it, the sharpening filter just increases the contrast of edges in the image.


First the obvious "Pan's Labyrinth" comparison to see what we're looking for:
 
 


First shot has "smooth" details and blocks, second has grain specks everywhere and no compression crap that I can see.


Kram Sacul said that "A Clockwork Orange" looks "a little DNRnish or filtered", particularly this frame:
 


It does appear pretty similar to the first PL shot, in that compression garbage is more evident than any grain.


But there could be other elements at work here. Stats thread says the encodes are:

Pan's Labyrinth US - 15.76Mbps VC-1

Pan's Labyrinth UK - 29.45Mbps VC-1

A Clockwork Orange - 18.98Mbps VC-1


Can anyone point to some ~16Mbps VC-1 screenshots that display grain? Or shots of some early 70s movies that aren't suspected of DNR...


Edit: Okay, King Kong (from the screenshots at least) isn't as grainy as PL but with the oversharpening you can see a fair amount.

 


Here we have 16.48Mbps VC-1 that retains grain just fine. I see some little blocks but it's nothing compared to the US PL shot. I'd say this rules out compression as the issue pretty well (not that I expected it to play a major part).


For comparison the oversharpened 12Mbps broadcast MPEG-2 shot clearly can't cope, blocks everywhere:
 


Still trying to think of similar 70s movies there are shots of.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14031377
> 
> 
> mhafner,
> 
> Do you think The Shining in DNR-ed or filtered ?
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcom.../18.21-new.jpg
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20PDVD_008.jpg
> 
> FYI : The BD is from the remastered version.



Forget Beaver. Only 1080p stills are relevant.

Shining HD looks great. If they filtered at all it's minor.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14031612
> 
> 
> EE, DNR, or both?



DNR in the first place. I think I saw some EE at times but I was focusing on enjoying the film and not how edges looked.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14032648
> 
> 
> Forget Beaver. Only 1080p stills are relevant.
> 
> Shining HD looks great. If they filtered at all it's minor.



Well. You said it can't ask for more.


----------



## msgohan

Does no one care about this sharpening test thing or is it because it appears I broke image-load?










Just watching The Shining BD for the first time now, it's certainly grainier than A Clockwork Orange. One strange issue though, when the image fades to black after Danny's first vision of blood, the grain stops acting naturally and instead becomes banded and pulsates as the bitrate drops to 0.5Mbps.


If you add some sharpening to DVDBeaver's 2nd DVD shot you can see that the details are there.


Edit: I have noticed a couple panning shots that look a bit odd. Like around 1:12:15 where the grain seems to be interacting strangely with the vertical lines of the wallpaper. I'd say it's a compression thing since the door in the same shot looks okay.


----------



## MSmith83

I skimmed through the _Patton_ Blu-ray a bit this morning, and I must say that it should definitely stay on the list for excessive DNR. I thought that I wouldn't find it as objectionable as Robert Harris found it, but it's an unabashed disappointment in my opinion.


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msgohan* /forum/post/14033033
> 
> 
> Does no one care about this sharpening test thing or is it because it appears I broke image-load?



Probably that. I like the idea of processing images to find what's really happening with the compression though.


----------



## msgohan

Image-load appears to be working again. Here's an oversharpened shot from The Shining so you can see the graininess.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks msgohan. No offense. I am still not convinced with the overall PQ of The Shining though some parts of it really popped.


----------



## mhafner

Added "The Longest Day" and Patton pics.


----------



## Brian81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msgohan* /forum/post/14031872
> 
> 
> 
> First the obvious "Pan's Labyrinth" comparison to see what we're looking for:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First shot has "smooth" details and blocks, second has grain specks everywhere and no compression crap that I can see.




The difference is quite noticable. Is that UK version the version that's available on HD DVD? I have the US HD DVD but agree that that the UK pic (whatever format it is on) looks better. I believe the UK HD DVD is pretty cheap to come by, so a double dip wouldn't bother me.


----------



## msgohan

Heh the point of the post wasn't about Pan's Labyrinth, but yes there is a big difference. The UK shot is from the BD, no one seems to know if the UK HD DVD is the same transfer or not but the encode has to be different since the BD one is too large to fit.


----------



## paku

No full-rez shots of The Longest Day yet? As cleaned-up as Patton was, it seems TLD might be a proper cartoon job.


----------



## Damnationdoormat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/14038824
> 
> 
> No full-rez shots of The Longest Day yet? As cleaned-up as Patton was, it seems TLD might be a proper cartoon job.



Unsure if this has been posted here before, but Blu-ray.com has some 720p shots, the smoothed over look appears to indicate it's suffered the same fate as *Patton*.


Also just to point out, DVDBeaver's DVD comparison of *Patton* reveals the old DVD wasn't DNR'ed, but the new DVD (used for the BD) was. Also looks like the colors have been screwed with, every object looks like a uniform shade of green.




















Not buying either of these on Blu-ray. Absolutely pathetic.


----------



## Brian81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msgohan* /forum/post/14038807
> 
> 
> Heh the point of the post wasn't about Pan's Labyrinth, but yes there is a big difference. The UK shot is from the BD, no one seems to know if the UK HD DVD is the same transfer or not but the encode has to be different since the BD one is too large to fit.



Hmm. Does it (BD) have similar extras to the US release, and are they playable on US players?


----------



## msgohan

I'll refer you to the thread I started when I was looking at the different releases.


----------



## lgans316

 http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/ 

*The Orphanage - Stair-stepping ahoy!*











> Quote:
> The Blu-ray release, unfortunately, is marred by the fact that it appears to have been taken from a source with a horizontal resolution of less than 1920 pixels. A certain blockiness is evident throughout in diagonal edges, which take on a stair-stepped quality: look, for example, at Fernando Cayo's nose in Shot 7 and Mabel Rivera's cheek in Example 9. Basically, it's like a less extreme version of the effect visible in Warner's early so-called "1080i upconverted" transfers. It's not dreadful, and it's somewhat ironic that the end result actually looks somewhat better than the full 1920x1080 The Golden Compass in all its noise reduced glory, but it's disappointing nonetheless. New Line's HD output, so far, has been pretty problematic to say the least, and it's a shame (but not entirely surprising) that reviewers haven't been picking up on these faults.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benes* /forum/post/14051157
> 
> 
> I did notice that but its very very very minor. Unless your nose is on the screen you are not going to see it. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as the Warner stuff.



Looking at the stills I think it's not too obvious but clearly there. This one shows it well:
http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdc...orphanage3.jpg 

I will see this sitting 2 screen heights away. The same way I see the single lines in one pixel wide black and white lines test patterns.


----------



## lgans316

Title: Face/Off (1997)

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD (US)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Entire movie

Comments: It doesn't take more than 10~15 minutes to realize how bad the PQ is. An excellent title slapped with moderate to heavy DNR and sharpening visible on the facial outlines (forehead to be precise). The Import version looks miles better than the domestic release though ultimately they all seem to be minted from a poor improperly cleansed HD master. This has got to be the worst High Definition experience for me next to First Blood.


----------



## Xylon

Twister

OMGWTFBBQ!


I want a refuuuuuuuuuuuund!


----------



## Xylon

I would like to thank *mhafner* for this *invaluable* informative thread. It has helped members with much better understanding of *D*igital *N*oise *R*eduction and *E*dge *E*nchancement used on High Definition releases.


Some people may not be happy with us (AVS) complaining about these overused digital tricks because its not being favorable to the winning format. Even though its so obvious that these "tricks" has essentially artificially removed the character of the films that we love.


Keep up the excellent work, I support you 100% and for the rest of you guys keep looking . . . . . . . . . . .


----------



## MSmith83

I think two early Lions Gate BDs need to be added for excessive DNR. Both of these titles have considerably more high frequency detail and grain on their overseas HD DVD releases.


Title: Basic Instinct (1992)

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: There is literally no grain and significantly less detail than what is found in other HD presentations. DNR artifacts such as ghosting trails are not uncommon.

URLs:


Title: First Blood (1982)

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Virtually no film grain, wax-like presentation, and an abundance of ghosting artifacts.

URLs:


----------



## lgans316

+1 for First Blood but I thought the application of DNR varied from shot to shot.


----------



## MSmith83

That may be, but there didn't seem to be a single moment when Lions Gate let the image come through on its own merits. The DNR here is simply terrible. A thread from last year was revived where I mentioned this, which reminded me to talk about it here.


Doing a quick search, I see that even a "professional" reviewer caught on to this (which says a lot). As he said, "_First Blood_ *almost* looks fantastic in high-def."


----------



## msgohan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/14076881
> 
> 
> Title: Basic Instinct (1992)
> 
> Studio: Lions Gate
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR
> 
> Time Codes: Whole film
> 
> Comments: There is literally no grain and significantly less detail than what is found in other HD presentations. DNR artifacts such as ghosting trails are not uncommon.
> 
> URLs:










You're not kidding! I guess I was blind to DNR when I first watched this in January cause I thought it was pretty good, but wow, I checked it again and faces are destroyed. You're right about there being no grain; instead flat colors are occupied by patches of what look like small moving compression artifacts.


----------



## paku

 First Blood HD DVD vs Blu-ray . Same master, but US BD has been brightened a bit. The source seems to exhibit the same type of cross-hatch-like noise pattern instead of grain as Face/Off. Basically terrible, and needs a completely new transfer from film.


----------



## msgohan

Is the German HD DVD the same transfer as French and Australian? I'm not seeing the additional detail people have claimed.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/14076881
> 
> 
> I think two early Lions Gate BDs need to be added for excessive DNR. Both of these titles have considerably more high frequency detail and grain on their overseas HD DVD releases.
> 
> 
> Title: Basic Instinct (1992)
> 
> Studio: Lions Gate
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR
> 
> Time Codes: Whole film
> 
> Comments: There is literally no grain and significantly less detail than what is found in other HD presentations. DNR artifacts such as ghosting trails are not uncommon.
> 
> URLs:
> 
> 
> Title: First Blood (1982)
> 
> Studio: Lions Gate
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR
> 
> Time Codes: Whole film
> 
> Comments: Virtually no film grain, wax-like presentation, and an abundance of ghosting artifacts.
> 
> URLs:



Oh shoot i ordered Basic Instinct and have it arriving soon......Now i'm going to be very disappointed.


When watching Rambo yesterday on Blu Ray i came across the trailers for the original Rambo trilogy.....Picture looked way too soft and smooth and to my eyes lacking real detail....Are the trailers representative of the actual movies on Blu Ray because if they are then i'm going to avoid them.


Rambo ( 4th one ) looked great though with some nice fine grain left intact.


Also saw the trailer for The Punisher.....Wow it looked soft and very smooth and undetailed...Once again is this the way it actually looks on Blu Ray ?


I'm starting to get fed up with all this **** I may take a long break from the forums as the DNR thing is just starting to bug me and i find myself unable to hold back from posting when people start saying something with lots of DNR looks great....


I know i'm being stupid and silly by responding but it just bugs the hell out of me that some great films that i want to buy are being ruined and this hobby of mine is starting to feel less fun now and i'm starting to feel that buying films is becoming pointless. It seems hit and miss whether a film is going to look great or bad and some of my favorites appear to have been ruined on Blu Ray due to excessive DNR or added Edge enhancement.


Every time i buy something now it's like i need to read a dozen reviews and visit these forums just to find out whether the studio messed up or not and that to me is a real pain and i'm starting to question the whole point of buying anything.....Then i watch a great transfer and start to believe a little again.


Then there is the added issues of edge enhancement ( why the **** are studio's continuing to add this to HD media )


I am starting to wonder what has happened to AVS forums though with so many saying the DNR look of films like Patton is great....In the old days that would never have happened to the extent it now does....If this continues it may be a place i won't want to visit but at the moment threads like this keep me here and keep me informed.


Ok rant over.....maybe i will post less but read more as i also seem to have ticked a few people off with my opinions and frankly i don't need the hassles that can come from that.


Great thread though and i'm glad it's here.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> so many saying the DNR look of films like Patton is great.



Don't be insincere buddy. Even members in blu-ray forum have quoted that Patton looks Phenomenal. I had initially posted in the PQ tier thread that Patton looked excellent but couldn't boldly tell it was DNR-ed because of lack of evidence and due to the fact of it looking great on 37" and 50" Plasma. Once it was proven by experts I had openly requested the members to disregard my PQ assessment. So how many out here you think will do that ?


Besides the DNR does Patton really looked pathetic ? Nope. It still looks good sorry great than many DNR free titles. Could you quote some posts that mentions Patton looks great ?


Please keep in mind that not all members oyt here have the trained eyes to deeply assess PQ and point out flaws. There are J6Ps like me out here who are learning a lot from experienced members out here. Just because few members quote something wrong doesn't bring disgrace to this forum.


----------



## giggle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14082050
> 
> 
> Don't be insincere buddy. Even members in blu-ray forum have quoted that Patton looks Phenomenal. I had initially posted in the PQ tier thread that Patton looked excellent but couldn't boldly tell it was DNR-ed because of lack of evidence and due to the fact of it looking great on 37" and 50" Plasma. Once it was proven by experts I had openly requested the members to disregard my PQ assessment. So how many out here you think will do that ?
> 
> 
> Besides the DNR does Patton really looked pathetic ? Nope. It still looks good sorry great than many DNR free titles. Could you quote some posts that mentions Patton looks great ?
> 
> 
> Please keep in mind that not all members oyt here have the trained eyes to deeply assess PQ and point out flaws. There are J6Ps like me out here who are learning a lot from experienced members out here. Just because few members quote something wrong doesn't bring disgrace to this forum.




I will say this while on a FJ it is much more noticeable, I certainly noticed this on my 50" plasma as well. This is one of the worst cases of DNR I have seen and couldn't have been more obvious. The faces look like Clay for Pete's sake. It is a shame that this great film has been butchered.


FWIW, I thought The Shinning was one of the best if not the best older titles I own. I didn't notice DNR at all.


----------



## Brian81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/14076881
> 
> 
> I think two early Lions Gate BDs need to be added for excessive DNR. Both of these titles have considerably more high frequency detail and grain on their overseas HD DVD releases.
> 
> 
> Title: Basic Instinct (1992)
> 
> Studio: Lions Gate
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR
> 
> Time Codes: Whole film
> 
> Comments: There is literally no grain and significantly less detail than what is found in other HD presentations. DNR artifacts such as ghosting trails are not uncommon.
> 
> URLs:
> 
> 
> Title: First Blood (1982)
> 
> Studio: Lions Gate
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR
> 
> Time Codes: Whole film
> 
> Comments: Virtually no film grain, wax-like presentation, and an abundance of ghosting artifacts.
> 
> URLs:




The HD DVDs of both have the 'pitch issue'. I haven't watched any of the affected titles and I'm not sure how noticeable it is. Either way, I'm at a loss here because I love most of Verhoeven's films (Basic Instinct and Total Recall both affected) and First Blood is a classic.


----------



## mhafner

Added Gangs of New York US-Disney. Stinks like the UK version.


----------



## Brian81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msgohan* /forum/post/14081675
> 
> 
> Is the German HD DVD the same transfer as French and Australian? I'm not seeing the additional detail people have claimed.



Same here, the BD just looks brightened based on the screencaps. If anything, the stills on that page make the BD look better IMO. It's not a big difference like the stills comparison of Total Recall. I went ahead and ordered Total Recall, even if it has the pitch issue. Perhaps it won't bother me too much. Either way, I already own the BD and I'll keep both. I also ordered Basic Instinct. The trailers on the Studio Canal HD DVDs have footage from this and it has grain. So if the BD (which I plan to order also) does have details DNRed out, I'll be keeping both once again. But those caps for First Blood don't make me want to go out and order the HD DVD. They look the same but with different brightness. And Rambo II & III are said to be fine in the PQ department according to Igans, I think.


----------



## mhafner

Mr. Bean looks clean to me too. I have pulled it till some stills actually show EE.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Excellent series on some of Universal's old catalog titles we love. With screen captures.










Universal's House of Horrors

Part 1 

Part 2 

Part 3


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14174455
> 
> 
> Excellent series on some of Universal's old catalog titles we love. With screen captures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Universal's House of Horrors
> 
> Part 1
> 
> Part 2
> 
> Part 3



Nice!


Can't wait for Lost in Translation.


----------



## Brian81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14175040
> 
> 
> Nice!
> 
> 
> Can't wait for Lost in Translation.



I haven't watched the Lost in Translation HD DVD yet, but I have watched the D-Theater. Wasn't this a soft film to begin with? People complained about it then, also.


On the link, I don't think Universal was as bad as people, especially the author on this site says. He's usually good in doing comparisons, but these comments in the "Universal's House of Horrors" don't match the ratings on the same site, and some of the better PQ titles are below those listed here.

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/writings/hdimage.html 


Seed of Chucky received an 8; so did Red Dragon.


Fear and Loathing received a 7. So does The Thing (excellent PQ).


Lost in Translation, Eternal Sunshine, Brokeback, and Malkovich received 5s.


By comparison, both Black Hawk Down and Brotherhood of the Wolf only received 4s (both excellent PQ).


----------



## Kram Sacul

New entries


Title: Brokeback Mountain (2005) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Smooth/filtered DNR look with little to none texture definition

URLs: Example 1 , Example 2 , Example 3 , Example 4 , Example 5 , Example 6 


Title: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Really edgy old transfer

URLs: Example 1 , Example 2 , Example 3 , Example 4 , Example 5 , Example 6 


Updated entries with examples


Title: Cat People (1982) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Outdated Universal transfer with DNR and thick EE.

URLs: Example 1 , Example 2 , Example 3, Example 4 , Example 5 , Example 6 


Title: Seed of Chucky (2004) 

Studio: Universal

Disc: HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: Inconsistent transfer with some scenes having EE, others clean

URLs: Example


----------



## FoxyMulder

I watched 3:10 To Yuma yesterday and couldn't see the jaggies at all....It looked fine to me but i'll be the first to admit i tend to notice DNR, EE or Macroblocking or Mosquito Noise before i notice something like jaggies. Kinda glad i noticed none actually.


Decent remake but not a patch on the original film.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14177546
> 
> 
> I watched 3:10 To Yuma yesterday and couldn't see the jaggies at all....It looked fine to me but i'll be the first to admit i tend to notice DNR, EE or Macroblocking or Mosquito Noise before i notice something like jaggies. Kinda glad i noticed none actually..



Helps enjoying the film. 

If you fully resolve 1080p the color jaggies are there, as demonstrated in the stills.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14176412
> 
> 
> New entries
> 
> 
> Title: Brokeback Mountain (2005)
> 
> Studio: Universal
> 
> Disc: HD-DVD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR
> 
> Time Codes: Whole film
> 
> Comments: Smooth/filtered DNR look with little to none texture definition
> 
> URLs: Example 1 , Example 2 , Example 3 , Example 4 , Example 5 , Example 6



Is the UK BD any different?

I'm not convinced in this case. I'll have to check the UK BD again.


----------



## mhafner

Added Stargate BD which has thick EE at times.


----------



## mhafner

Added 'Before the Devil Knows You're Dead'. Another Genesis camera sourced transfer with aliasing issues. What's up with these Genesis masters?? Sometimes vertical lines show massive wobbling around. Then there is 'normal' moiré and jaggies at times. Most shots seem to be free of them but some look really bad


----------



## lgans316

Is this problem similar to Next which was shot using Genesis camera ?


----------



## MovieSwede




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14180460
> 
> 
> Added 'Before the Devil Knows You're Dead'. Another Genesis camera sourced transfer with aliasing issues. What's up with these Genesis masters?? Sometimes vertical lines show massive wobbling around. Then there is 'normal' moiré and jaggies at times. Most shots seem to be free of them but some look really bad



Was every shoot made with the Genesis?


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14195974
> 
> 
> Is this problem similar to Next which was shot using Genesis camera ?



No. Next has this persistent general filtering problem. With Devil it pops in and out and looks different. Several types of aliasing.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MovieSwede* /forum/post/14195979
> 
> 
> Was every shoot made with the Genesis?



All is Genesis by the looks of it. The making of mentions no use of 35mm for some shots.


----------



## micnic77




> Quote:
> Title: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)
> 
> Studio: Image Entertainment
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: Aliasing/Moiré/Wobbling
> 
> Time Codes: At regular intervals during the whole film
> 
> Comments: Another Genesis sourced transfer that has issues with jaggies and messed up fine detail. Most shots look clean but some have massive wobbling of vertical lines or jaggies are running up and down some edges, freeze into invisibilty and come alive again. Car grills are problematic, as usual. Bad conversion to 1080p 4:2:0? Problems in the master?
> 
> URLs:



I can confirm this for the UK (Entertainment in Video) Blu-ray as well. The same problems.


----------



## emgesp

IMHO, the quality leap from 480P-1080P is more important and noticeable, than judging the same Blu-ray movie with/without DNR applied. Until, DNR is used so heavily it makes an HD disk look SD, I'm not going to be so anal about such a subtle difference one can only spot in a side by side comparison.


Though, If I had a choice, I would ask to see what it would look like without DNR applied, and if the grain is more annoying than film like, then I would opt for some slight DNR utilization.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *emgesp* /forum/post/14202762
> 
> 
> IMHO, the quality leap from 480P-1080P is more important and noticeable, than judging the same Blu-ray movie with/without DNR applied. Until, DNR is used so heavily it makes an HD disk look SD, I'm not going to be so anal about such a subtle difference one can only spot in a side by side comparison.



There is DNR and there is DNR. The kind Patton and Longest Day show needs nothing for comparison. It speaks volumes for itself. The kind Warner allegedly often applies (I'm not saying they do, except some obvious cases like Twister) is something else.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14205838
> 
> 
> mhafner,
> 
> 
> Can you check on this and revert back ?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post14196068



I don't have Shooter BD, only HD-DVD.


----------



## mhafner

Watched Jumper. It has some shots with DNR smearing, and some look too edgy. But overall it's not enough to put on the list, I'd say. Opinions?


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14219061
> 
> 
> Many noticed some kind of smearing on Jumper but weren't able boldly say if it was due to DNR 'coz the entire movie had persistent film grain.
> 
> Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.



I think some shots on the DI had DNR and sharpening. No disc (mastering) problem.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Like The Departed?


----------



## House

Got any timestamps so we can take a look, m?


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *House* /forum/post/14219863
> 
> 
> Got any timestamps so we can take a look, m?



The opening scene(s) with the jumper as boy. Watch his skin in motion.


----------



## mhafner

I have to add "There Will Be Blood" to the list. Persistent EE in daylight shots that give the picture a harsh and video look. Another brand new transfer with EE. Sad. Grain is fine, on the other hand.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14219837
> 
> 
> Like The Departed?



have not yet watched Departed beyond the scene in question.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14228861
> 
> 
> Is the EE on TWBB persistent or appears only in overexposed daylight shots ?



Persistent in most daylight shots. Less visible in dark/interior shots. Some shots look clean, but maybe only due to lack of high contrast detail.


----------



## msgohan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/12195518
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Title: Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
> 
> Studio: New Line
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR and possibly EE
> 
> Time Codes: Whole Movie
> 
> Comments: US BD has strong DNR, French HD-DVD and German BD does not. The examples show the difference clearly. DNR destroys the film look and turns people into wax puppets.
> 
> URLs:
> Example1_UK_BD_No_DNR
> Example1_US_BD_HD-DVD_WITH_DNR
> Example2_UK_BD_No_DNR
> Example2_US_BD_HD-DVD_WITH_DNR
> Example3_UK_BD_No_DNR
> Example3_US_BD_HD-DVD_WITH_DNR
> Example4_UK_BD_No_DNR
> Example4_US_BD_HD-DVD_WITH_DNR
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Can you update this to note that the UK BD is DNR-free and the French HD DVD has some other processing ? I'm not sure what to call it.


My first addition:


Title: Total Recall (1990) 

Studio: Lionsgate & Studio Canal / Universal

Disc: BD (USA) & HD DVD (France / Australia)

Problem: Digital scratch removal artifacts

Time Codes: Whole Movie

Comments: Scratch removal that removes picture details deemed to be "scratches" such as bullet shells. The intact scratches and details can be seen on the DVD releases. The HD DVD seems to have more objects removed than the BD.

URLs: DVD vs BD #1 , DVD vs BD #2 , DVD vs HD DVD


----------



## mhafner

Done.


----------



## micnic77




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14228853
> 
> 
> I have to add "There Will Be Blood" to the list. Persistent EE in daylight shots that give the picture a harsh and video look. Another brand new transfer with EE. Sad. Grain is fine, on the other hand.



I just tested this dics in various scenes and paused everytime I saw high contrast edges. But even realy close to the screen (1080p) I can see no such thing as EE. No halos or anything comparable. To me it looks perfectly accurate. Have you checked that your sharpness setting in the display/player isn't creating these things? Maybe you have a link to screenshots? Unfortunately I couldn't find any and I don't have a PC drive. Or can you provide time codes?


----------



## paku

_The Wild Bunch_ is listed for EE but it seems to have some other problem as well. DVDBeaver put up a few captures and while there is no obviously smooth DNR-look, it looks like it's been filtered somehow. Instead of a clearly visible grain structure there is a noisy pattern of edgy "microblocks" visible in most shots. Particularly to the right in the very first cap, and on the extreme close-up in the seventh cap. I don't think simply poor compression could do this. Can anyone confirm what I'm seeing?


----------



## Kram Sacul

I think it's a combination of old transfer and dnr. Pretty smudgy


----------



## bjmarchini

I hate these things. I feel like a dope in that I can never really see much of difference. They look about the same in my. Seems like the one has slightly more pronounce pits in his face... but I stress slightly.


I take that back. I can definitely see the difference on the second example. Still not alot though.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *micnic77* /forum/post/14237277
> 
> 
> I just tested this dics in various scenes and paused everytime I saw high contrast edges. But even realy close to the screen (1080p) I can see no such thing as EE. No halos or anything comparable. To me it looks perfectly accurate. Have you checked that your sharpness setting in the display/player isn't creating these things? Maybe you have a link to screenshots? Unfortunately I couldn't find any and I don't have a PC drive. Or can you provide time codes?



It's not my player or display in general. I would welcome screen shots, though, especially for the faint ringing where I'm not sure if the display chain is completely free of it. I'll have another look and write down some time codes.


----------



## FoxyMulder

I don't know about the edge enhancement which i'll check out when i view it properly but you have mentioned the film for a certain look which you call video look....Are you one hundred percent sure they didn't go for a certain look...The film did win an academy award for cinematography so i'm wondering if it's supposed to look that way on Blu Ray.....I haven't watched it yet other than checking out a few scenes and it looked to me ok but i can't say more until i actually watch it fully.


Here's an article on the film... http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynam...lood/page1.php 


From that article....


The production employed a range of Panavision anamorphic lenses that were modified for the filmmakers by lens designer Dan Sasaki, who has since joined A&S Precision to create lenses for Dalsa Digital Cinema. Elswit’s primary lenses were C-Series lenses Sasaki had originally prepared for Steven Soderbergh’s _Solaris._ Additionally, the production used a full set of E-Series lenses; two modified spherical Panavision SP lenses, a 35mm and 55mm whose optics were roughly 40 years old; and a set of Super High Speed lenses (ranging from 35mm to 85mm) whose optics were based on modifications Sasaki had made to another set for _Memoirs of a Geisha_ (_AC_ Jan. ’06). Sasaki also tricked up a vintage 43mm lens that was built around the optical element of a 1910 Pathé camera Anderson had bought and used for select scenes in _Magnolia._ According to Barry “Baz” Idoine, Elswit’s 1st AC, “The C-Series lenses were generally used for interiors that didn’t require high-speed lenses. The Es had lower contrast and resolution than standard Es and a softer look than the modified Cs; that set was often used for exteriors to soften the harsh desert daylight a bit. The Super High Speed lenses were really amazing — they were so fresh from the machine shop they weren’t even anodized. We used those for night sequences, of course, but Bob also used them to capture some dusk sequences that were just phenomenal. The SP lenses were anamorphized by Dan after we’d done some tests with them. The 43mm lens definitely had a vintage look — desaturated, low-contrast, vignetting and low-resolution.” Sasaki explains, “The main modifications I made [to the C- and E-Series lenses] involved replacing the old taking lenses with more modern glass, but we also changed the cylinder prescriptions a little to make the lenses flatter. The Es were optimized for maximum fidelity, but we made the Cs more vulnerable to flaring with modifications that would cause the light to scatter a bit more; in some of them, we introduced reflective material, and in others, we removed the anti-reflective coatings from the lenses. Paul didn’t want the flares to look like the kind you might see in a music video; he wanted the controlled, organic look you’d get from a dated lens.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14250449
> 
> 
> I don't know about the edge enhancement which i'll check out when i view it properly but you have mentioned the film for a certain look which you call video look.....



I don't know if this look on HD is fully intended or not. It looks sharpened to me and not like a print from the negative would look. It looks too harsh, too digital. Maybe intentionally.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> The film did win an academy award for cinematography so i'm wondering if it's supposed to look that way on Blu Ray.



Even Master and Commander won academy award for best cinematography. Was it translated properly onto Blu-ray ? I don't think so.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14250533
> 
> 
> Even Master and Commander won academy award for best cinematography. Was it translated properly onto Blu-ray ? I don't think so.



You really can't compare the two films....So why are you even trying.


Get a digital camera and let's see what you are seeing on your screen lgans ( they are cheap )


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14250644
> 
> 
> You really can't compare the two films....So why are you even trying.
> 
> Get a digital camera and let's see what you are seeing on your screen lgans ( they are cheap )



Please no. There is enough debate already over 1:1 digital stills.


----------



## FoxyMulder

I just watched There Will Be Blood and i don't think it should be on this list.


I saw one instance which i thought was EE and that is around the fifty minute mark when Daniel Day Lewis walks up to the church and i thought i saw some EE on his right arm. Other than that i can't say anything else was there and if it was it's minor in the extreme.


I looked at the oil towers wood beams, trains, backgrounds of people against the distant skylines and beams supporting houses and the staircase support near the end of the film and everything inbetween and i just saw no evidence of edge enhancement.


The film looked fantastic, one of the best most film like looking that i own and it has a huge amount of detail in it's image so i also don't understand the video look you talk of. I did supply the above link which shows you they were looking for a certain look to the image and used a variety of lenses to achieve it.


I'm viewing on a 106 inch calibrated projection display.


As you probably know i have a link in my Film Grain Allowed thread to this one as i think it's a valuable thread and you are doing a great job here but There Will Be Blood doesn't belong in this thread. ( Just my opinion though )


----------



## Kram Sacul

Updated entry:


Title: Gattaca (1997) 

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR, EE

Time Codes:

Comments: Allegedly brand new transfer but sometimes obvious DNR and EE.

URLs: (From DVDBeaver.com) Example 1 Example 2 Example 3


----------



## paku

I can see the EE but other than that the caps didn't seem bad at all. If there is DNR it must be fairly light.


And if you're going to add the DVDBeaver caps you should re-up the pics to an image host instead of hotlinking.


----------



## lgans316

I am heartbroken to report that some moderate but judicious grain scrubbing have been performed by Lionsgate at least on the defective MPEG-2 encoded copy of The Descent that I have in possession.

*Evidence:* Compare the first deleted scene shot inside the house where the ladies chatter vs house scene on the actual movie. You can find a moderate veneer of film grain on the deleted scene which has been judiciously scrubbed on the actual scene. IMO I found this to be quite distracting.


Can someone check my claims with your copy ?


----------



## House

Title: The Mummy

Studio: Universal

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes: Desert scenes

Comments: Looks like the "remaster" didn't change anything, still at it's most noticeable during the opening + scattered desert scenes.

URLs: 1 , 2


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14260070
> 
> 
> I am heartbroken to report that some moderate but judicious grain scrubbing have been performed by Lionsgate at least on the defective MPEG-2 encoded copy of The Descent that I have in possession.
> 
> *Evidence:* Compare the first deleted scene shot inside the house where the ladies chatter vs house scene on the actual movie. You can find a moderate veneer of film grain on the deleted scene which has been judiciously scrubbed on the actual scene. IMO I found this to be quite distracting.
> 
> 
> Can someone check my claims with your copy ?



There is nothing defective about your copy of The Descent.....I own it and it's one of the best early transfers out there. ( It is most likely an AVC encode which for some reason is being reported as MPEG 2 by players and this could simply be a result of some header information on the disc which has wrongly been put on it and it in no way affects the image quality...No studio is going to make two different encodes of the same disc and release them to the public and even if it was MPEG 2 it's damn impressive looking )


This list is supposed to be for films which have a lot of EE or DNR according to the front page not just a small amount in a few scenes....In which case i would question why some films are actually on the list.


What size of screen do you view on lgans and is it calibrated....I think The Descent has nothing wrong with it to be on this list.


----------



## robena




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14228853
> 
> 
> I have to add "There Will Be Blood" to the list. Persistent EE in daylight shots that give the picture a harsh and video look. Another brand new transfer with EE. Sad. Grain is fine, on the other hand.



I agree completely. This transfer is just awful, I could not finish the movie because of that.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14252266
> 
> 
> I just watched There Will Be Blood and i don't think it should be on this list.
> 
> I saw one instance which i thought was EE and that is around the fifty minute mark when Daniel Day Lewis walks up to the church and i thought i saw some EE on his right arm. Other than that i can't say anything else was there and if it was it's minor in the extreme.
> 
> I looked at the oil towers wood beams, trains, backgrounds of people against the distant skylines and beams supporting houses and the staircase support near the end of the film and everything inbetween and i just saw no evidence of edge enhancement.



I checked the first 10 minutes again tonight and was once more really unhappy with the look of the landscape shots. They are processed and sharpened although differently than say "Gangs of New York" and this seems to fool people.

Here are three examples which I can easily see from a normal viewing distance but less so (!) when pushing the nose on the screen:

7:08/9:07/9:33: Wooden beams versus sky. To the sides of the beams is a whitish outline and after it a faint dark ringing line (this line is so faint I'm not sure it's real and on the disk). Really strong EE is here: 9:48 (border of hat versus sky). That can not be overlooked, even in 720p. Please recheck this hat. I can't believe you don't see the EE here.

The landscapes look sharpened and despite this, somewhat blurry and lacking fine detail, like a veil is over the picture.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Foxy. Can you please validate my claim on the slight grain scrubbing ?


My screens : Panny Plasmas - 37" @1080i and 50" @1080p.


Btw I agree that the Descent is a good movie with excellent PQ. Really scared the **** out of me especially my wife who hates blood and violence.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14263432
> 
> 
> I checked the first 10 minutes again tonight and was once more really unhappy with the look of the landscape shots. They are processed and sharpened although differently than say "Gangs of New York" and this seems to fool people.
> 
> Here are three examples which I can easily see from a normal viewing distance but less so (!) when pushing the nose on the screen:
> 
> 7:08/9:07/9:33: Wooden beams versus sky. To the sides of the beams is a whitish outline and after it a faint dark ringing line (this line is so faint I'm not sure it's real and on the disk). Really strong EE is here: 9:48 (border of hat versus sky). That can not be overlooked, even in 720p. Please recheck this hat. I can't believe you don't see the EE here.
> 
> The landscapes look sharpened and despite this, somewhat blurry and lacking fine detail, like a veil is over the picture.



mhafner,


Will be the EE be noticeable on smaller screens ? Anyways will check toniight and revert back.


If possible could you try grabbing the U.K Import of There Will Be Blood released by Miramax (BVHE) ? It's reported to feature LPCM though I am unable to get enough information about the encode.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14264546
> 
> 
> mhafner,
> 
> Will be the EE be noticeable on smaller screens ? Anyways will check toniight and revert back.
> 
> If possible could you try grabbing the U.K Import of There Will Be Blood released by Miramax (BVHE) ? It's reported to feature LPCM though I am unable to get enough information about the encode.



The hat EE is visible on smaller screens in 1080p. I don't buy disks for checking if I'm not interested in the film or have it already unless it's known to be a better version.


----------



## micnic77

It's a pitty that we don't have real screenshots. However, I just went to the scene with the hat (9:4x min) and photographed the image on my screen. All I can see are chromatic aberrations of the lens used (the purple line). I still think it's a very fine transfer.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14263432
> 
> 
> I checked the first 10 minutes again tonight and was once more really unhappy with the look of the landscape shots. They are processed and sharpened although differently than say "Gangs of New York" and this seems to fool people.
> 
> Here are three examples which I can easily see from a normal viewing distance but less so (!) when pushing the nose on the screen:
> 
> 7:08/9:07/9:33: Wooden beams versus sky. To the sides of the beams is a whitish outline and after it a faint dark ringing line (this line is so faint I'm not sure it's real and on the disk). Really strong EE is here: 9:48 (border of hat versus sky). That can not be overlooked, even in 720p. Please recheck this hat. I can't believe you don't see the EE here.
> *The landscapes look sharpened and despite this, somewhat blurry and lacking fine detail, like a veil is over the picture.*



When I tried to watch TWBB on BD when it was first released, I found the PQ, particularly in the landscape shots, to be so ugly that I basically found the movie to be unwatchable.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14266191
> 
> 
> When I tried to watch TWBB on BD when it was first released, I found the PQ, particularly in the landscape shots, to be so ugly that I basically found the movie to be unwatchable.



Horses for courses i guess because i found the cinematography beautiful. You need to check out the link i supplied earlier for American Cinematographer which tells you more about the film and the look they went for on this movie. There is a slightly higher contrast level to images but that's intentional.


MHafner...


Looking at micnic77's shot of the hat i can say that i did notice scenes like this in certain shots but i didn't consider any of that to be edge enhancement....The scene at the fifty minute mark where Day Lewis walks up to the church and you can see edge enhancement on his arm is all i saw that i thought was really bad. I really think though that the look you talk about is part of the cinematography and intentional...If there was bad edge enhancement i'd expect to see it around the wooden beams of the oil well and the houses and around the trains and people's bodies and i didn't see any of that.


Perhaps we could get Xylon to do some screenshots....I mean straight after watching The Professionals i was on these boards pointing out the area's i saw edge enhancement so i do know what to look for but i just felt this film didn't have major issues with it or it's look ( but if i can see more screenshots of the problem i may get an idea of where you are coming from on this )


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *micnic77* /forum/post/14266114
> 
> 
> It's a pitty that we don't have real screenshots. However, I just went to the scene with the hat (9:4x min) and photographed the image on my screen. All I can see are chromatic aberrations of the lens used (the purple line). I still think it's a very fine transfer.



I can see the sharpening clearly on your shots. But we need direct digital shots. Xylon to the rescue, please.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14266410
> 
> 
> Looking at micnic77's shot of the hat i can say that i did notice scenes like this in certain shots but i didn't consider any of that to be edge enhancement....



I don't see how the film was shot would make the hat look like this.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14267072
> 
> 
> I don't see how the film was shot would make the hat look like this.



I didn't mean that - sorry if that's how my post came across....I just meant it didn't look like typical edge enhancement to me so maybe it's something else.


I was wondering something though....I use an LCD projector...Is it possible that there are differences that people notice between LCD and DLP projection as well as Plasma and LCD and CRT sets ?


Perhaps because i am using an LCD the problem does not seem so great and almost non-existant to my eyes...I did calibrate it and sharpness is -2 on the projector so as not to add any artificial edge enhancement.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14260070
> 
> 
> *Evidence:* Compare the first deleted scene shot inside the house where the ladies chatter vs house scene on the actual movie. You can find a moderate veneer of film grain on the deleted scene which has been judiciously scrubbed on the actual scene. IMO I found this to be quite distracting.



I checked this just a little earlier tonight and it didn't look like film grain in the deleted scene...It looked a little like mosquito noise, dot crawl or plain old noise with it slightly moving around on some objects behind the women talking.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14267160
> 
> 
> Perhaps because i am using an LCD the problem does not seem so great and almost non-existant to my eyes...I did calibrate it and sharpness is -2 on the projector so as not to add any artificial edge enhancement..



I use the HD1 which is LCOS. Sharpness is set to zero. At -2 it looks the same.


----------



## FoxyMulder

This was Kris Deerings review of it...Another person who saw no major edge enhancement....I mostly agree with this review.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/movier...ood/index.html 


From the review.


Everyone was hoping this one would make it out on Blu-ray and Paramount has delivered an outstanding video presentation. This high bitrate VC1 encode preserves every ounce of detail from the photography and delivers one of the best film-like presentations I've seen lately. This film doesn't have the stylization we've seen so much from modern cinema but the framing of the film does wonders for the tension and mood of the film. Contrast levels are never exaggerated and colors have a natural quality that is rare these days. Black levels vary depending on the situation with a nice inky quality in the oil blast scenes but slightly elevated levels in some of the digging sequences. This makes depth a bit inconsistent but more realistic given the limitations of natural photography. Overall this is an outstanding transfer that showcases the gorgeous photography.


I asked Xylon if he would do some screenshots....Waiting to hear back.


----------



## Mark_H

Definitely EE on There Will Be Blood and pretty easy to see most of the time.


Mark


----------



## mhafner

Watched "Signs". Looks nice but the EE is hard to overlook. Some shots have it bad, most not much.


----------



## xradman

Spartacus HD DVD had one of the most disappointing PQ I've seen from HDM. In addition to the lack of fine detail and EE, I saw a lot of banding (posterization) in dark areas of the film. This was most apparent in the scene right after the bath scene between Tony Curtis and Laurence Olivier. I know my LCD projector is very sensitive to posterization but this was the worst I've seen.


----------



## Thunderbolt8

afaik spartacus was said to be an upscale anyway


----------



## xradman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/14298007
> 
> 
> afaik spartacus was said to be an upscale anyway



I don't think it was an upscale. Xylon's image comparison shows the HD DVD picture to be an improvement over DVD. I would guess 720p resolution or thereabouts. Traffic HD DVD was an upscale.


----------



## BIG ED

Thanks for the thread...

& saving me $$$!!!


----------



## online




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xradman* /forum/post/14304571
> 
> 
> I don't think it was an upscale. Xylon's image comparison shows the HD DVD picture to be an improvement over DVD. I would guess 720p resolution or thereabouts. Traffic HD DVD was an upscale.



Traffic was not an "upscale". None of the major studios are putting out "upscales" on HD DVD or Blu-ray.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *online* /forum/post/14308000
> 
> 
> Traffic was not an "upscale". None of the major studios are putting out "upscales" on HD DVD or Blu-ray.



Traffic was an SD master! Yes, as unbelievable as it sounds.


----------



## Steen DK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14308402
> 
> 
> Traffic was an SD master! Yes, as unbelievable as it sounds.



I'm pretty sure that Studio Canal's _Ran_ is also from an SD master. It's very sad.


----------



## lgans316

Mhafner,

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...un_blu-ray.htm 


The caps looks great but looks like the image has been artificially sharpened.


Do you think DNR is evident from the 1080p screen captures ?


----------



## Kram Sacul

I can see a few halos around the edges of faces and this shot has obvious ringing.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *House* /forum/post/14260679
> 
> 
> Title: The Mummy
> 
> Studio: Universal
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: EE
> 
> Time Codes: Desert scenes
> 
> Comments: Looks like the "remaster" didn't change anything, still at it's most noticeable during the opening + scattered desert scenes.
> 
> URLs: 1 , 2



But bitrate is higher. Surely there is some discernable difference.


Somewhere.


----------



## Kram Sacul

There's some pretty smudgy DNR going on in those two pics.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14308490
> 
> 
> Mhafner,
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...un_blu-ray.htm
> 
> The caps looks great but looks like the image has been artificially sharpened.
> 
> Do you think DNR is evident from the 1080p screen captures ?



I see EE and ringing at the image borders. For DNR I need to see it in motion.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *House* /forum/post/14260679
> 
> 
> Title: The Mummy
> 
> Studio: Universal
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: EE
> 
> Time Codes: Desert scenes
> 
> Comments: Looks like the "remaster" didn't change anything, still at it's most noticeable during the opening + scattered desert scenes.
> 
> URLs: 1 , 2



Thanks House. Good that I didn't pre-order Mummy and Mummy Returns as they had average PQ on HD DVD and it's now clear that the new encode was created from the same master with some tinkering.


----------



## Brian81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steen DK* /forum/post/14308479
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Studio Canal's _Ran_ is also from an SD master. It's very sad.



The clips of this look very good judging from the Studio Canal trailers. It looks nothing like the mess that is Traffic. I wouldn't be surprised if Leaving Las Vegas was from an SD master...it's very soft and there's not much detail, but it's a very clean looking presentation. This may be the way the film is though - it doesn't look like a DVD.


----------



## online




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14308402
> 
> 
> Traffic was an SD master! Yes, as unbelievable as it sounds.



I'm not holding my breath that you're going to provide any proof to back up your assertion...


----------



## xradman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *online* /forum/post/14313108
> 
> 
> I'm not holding my breath that you're going to provide any proof to back up your assertion...



I thought Xylon's frame grabs were pretty conclusive.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=300


----------



## online




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xradman* /forum/post/14313915
> 
> 
> I thought Xylon's frame grabs were pretty conclusive.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=300



I read through that thread and there is no proof, only conjecture.


----------



## Xylon




----------



## Xylon




----------



## Xylon




----------



## Xylon




----------



## Xylon




----------



## Xylon




----------



## Xylon




----------



## Xylon




----------



## Xylon

If you have a PS3 or HTPC, fire up your browser and view these screenshots thru your calibrated PJ.


It will give you a clue if the viewing set is exaggerating EE or ringing.


----------



## paku

I think the EE in TWBB is questionable. It's clear that in many cases, around hats and so, it's just extreme rim lighting, couldn't it then be that they used some EE to simulate the same effect in other parts where they couldn't achieve it through real lighting?


Take the guy on the left in the second to last capture. The effect to his left side; face, hat, shirt etc. is clearly due to lighting, but if you check his right side it becomes harder to tell and it almost looks more like EE. I don't know, it just seems too selective to not be intentional.


Or maybe they're trying to simulate the edge glow seen in some older pictures, that may or may not be an optical issue. Anyone know if Disney used the same encode on their Region B release?


----------



## paku

Double post, sorry.


----------



## Kram Sacul

The 5th capture. Arms, shoulders, legs... EE.


----------



## FoxyMulder

I still think the look of this film is very intentional with regards to the era the film is set in and i don't think there is heavy EE in this film....Is there mild EE...Maybe so but it's mild enough that the film doesn't deserve to be on this list.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14316596
> 
> 
> The 5th capture. Arms, shoulders, legs... EE.



I'm just not seeing major EE here. Perhaps some very minor stuff on the bottom part of the right leg but look at the background and then wonder if that is part of the optical process because i supplied a link earlier in the thread where they go into detail about how they shot this film.


----------



## House

Gonna go with "no *major* EE". I hardly call that distracting at all, even if it is EE in the first place (questionable). The thickest "halo" is the 5th walking pic where the jacket meets the leg on the left, which is still a far cry from anything else on the list so far.


Let's put it this way, 2001 had people left and right saying it was lens related and others saying it was EE, and that gets a mention on the list of there being reasonable doubt, but TWBB gets immediately thrown on there when it's nowhere near as bad?


----------



## micnic77




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *House* /forum/post/14317899
> 
> 
> Gonna go with "no *major* EE". I hardly call that distracting at all, even if it is EE in the first place (questionable). The thickest "halo" is the 5th walking pic where the jacket meets the leg on the left, which is still a far cry from anything else on the list so far.
> 
> 
> Let's put it this way, 2001 had people left and right saying it was lens related and others saying it was EE, and that gets a mention on the list of there being reasonable doubt, but TWBB gets immediately thrown on there when it's nowhere near as bad?



+1


Thanks a lot for the screenshots Xylon. If there is some EE than it clearly doesn't influence the look of the film like some suggested. The transfer still looks very faithfull to me (without knowing how the master looks of cause - so only my impression).


----------



## Kram Sacul

That white line on DDL's shoulder is just too clear to ignore though. Maybe it's not Gangs of New York level EE but it certainly is enough to be on the list as "slight EE at times".


----------



## mhafner

Thanks for the stills. Looks as expected. I see the haloes during projection clearly on my 3.5m wide screen and find them obvious and distracting. The images are at the same time fuzzy (low MTF) and then they have the sharpening artifacts. That's just a very unattractive combination in my eyes. I don't like the look of this transfer at all.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *online* /forum/post/14315145
> 
> 
> I read through that thread and there is no proof, only conjecture.



If the only proof you accept is a written statement by the studio, move on. There is none. For the others you know how the saying goes: If it Looks Like a Duck, Walks Like A Duck, Sounds Like a Duck


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14317116
> 
> 
> I still think the look of this film is very intentional with regards to the era the film is set in and i don't think there is heavy EE in this film....Is there mild EE...Maybe so but it's mild enough that the film doesn't deserve to be on this list.



Concerning intentional the list here usually makes no assumptions if something is approved or not. Only the presence of some types of artifacts or processing is listed. While some cases are hardly approved others might well be.

Some of the TWBB stills show also lighting effects, not just sharpening. And the sharpening is not nearly as strong as "Gangs". But if we list only Gangs type of EE we are way too lenient. The TWBB type of sharpening is probably invisible on most displays watched from normal distances. It's easy to see on large displays and screens when projected. On a cinema type screen it would be very obvious. We are not limited to list 'major' EE here, whatever that means.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14323405
> 
> 
> Concerning intentional the list here usually makes no assumptions if something is approved or not. Only the presence of some types of artifacts or processing is listed. While some cases are hardly approved others might well be.
> 
> Some of the TWBB stills show also lighting effects, not just sharpening. And the sharpening is not nearly as strong as "Gangs". But if we list only Gangs type of EE we are way too lenient. The TWBB type of sharpening is probably invisible on most displays watched from normal distances. It's easy to see on large displays and screens when projected. On a cinema type screen it would be very obvious. We are not limited to list 'major' EE here, whatever that means.



I was quoting your front page. It doesn't state minor issues so i assumed minor issues wouldn't be a problem. From your front page


"This thread is not for basic discussion of what EE and DNR etc. is or if this type of processing or artifact is good or bad, distracting or not distracting. That can be discussed elsewhere. This list is for people who know what it is, what it looks like and have decided that they don't like it and want to avoid discs having (a lot of) it".


I didn't see a lot of EE just minor instances.


Sorry i disagree as i am watching on a 106inch projector and i do not see major issues with EE on There Will Be Blood....I don't even watch at a normal distance as i am closer to the screen than most would be at this size.


You are trying to say it is invisible on my screen....Tell me then why i can notice EE on The Professionals or The Mummy as just two examples.....I can even notice a few scenes in There Will Be Blood but it is not a major issue and lasts for barely a few seconds for a film running over Two and a half hours and this film looks beautiful on Blu Ray.


It's your list though so do what you want but i disagree with this one film being on it.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Get ready to add Dark City to the list. From the screen captures on DVDBeaver it's been botched with New Line's DNR.


----------



## House

Quick and dirty shots.

 


Grain in the background moves very unnaturally, you can probably see it's subdued (almost gone) in that shot too. There's also some pulsating too (when Jenny is singing at the club and it's a fairly close up shot for example).

 


Nice thick and juicy EE.

 


By your powers combined...


----------



## Kram Sacul

Those captures are just awful. How can they take a perfectly fine transfer and botch it up so bad with DNR and EE? William Hurt looks like one of the statues in Patton.


I wish I still had the HD broadcast version to compare. It was open matte/cropped and compressed to death but I don't remember it being waxed up.


----------



## House

I've got the broadcast somewhere around here, I'll root it out later and do a comparison.


EDIT: Here you go.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14323913
> 
> 
> I was quoting your front page. It doesn't state minor issues so i assumed minor issues wouldn't be a problem.



There is no objective definition of minor or major here. We already had someone posting that he could not even finish this transfer because of they way it looked. Obviously it was really major to him. I was iritated throughout the whole film. Other people are not bothered by almost any titles on the list. If we dumb it down till everyone agrees they don't like it the list is empty. On the other hand we can't put every title released on the list either. In this film the sharpening is going on most of the time. If it were just some shots I would probably not bother. But as it is it belongs on the list. People can then rent to see if it bothers them or not. I would not want to buy this (again) if I knew how it looked.


----------



## mhafner

Oh sh... Looks like New Line screwed up "Dark City" indeed. EE and DNR.









Very sad. First Pan and now this.

Putting on the list right now.


----------



## paku

New addition:


Title: Donnie Brasco (1997) 

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: Strong but extremely thin EE occasionally visible along high-contrast edges.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2


----------



## paku

Title: Reservoir Dogs (1992) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes:

Comments: The effect may not be as devastating as some other examples, but there is a distinct lack of grain (and sharpness).

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3


----------



## AmishFury

Movie: Enemy at the Gates (stalingrad)

Studio: Pathe

Disc French HD-DVD

Problem: EE

Time Codes: whole movie

Comments: not as noticable in some shots but most of the film is affected also aspect ratio is not the original 2.35:1 but opened up (supposedly with director's consent) to 1.78:1

URLs: AmishFury's comparison thread


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14325404
> 
> 
> There is no objective definition of minor or major here. We already had someone posting that he could not even finish this transfer because of they way it looked. Obviously it was really major to him. I was iritated throughout the whole film. Other people are not bothered by almost any titles on the list. If we dumb it down till everyone agrees they don't like it the list is empty. On the other hand we can't put every title released on the list either. In this film the sharpening is going on most of the time. If it were just some shots I would probably not bother. But as it is it belongs on the list. People can then rent to see if it bothers them or not. I would not want to buy this (again) if I knew how it looked.



Yet some of us say it isn't there as you describe it. But you would rather dismiss those of us who say it isn't there.


Ok get ya and i'll move on.


----------



## lgans316

Is Dark City expected to be added to the DNR/EE list ?


----------



## AmishFury

it's already on the list


----------



## John J. Puccio

Yet despite DVDBeaver's "Dark City" screen caps, the DVDBeaver reviewer has nothing but praise for the Blu-ray's video quality:


"The image quality differences show mostly in detail and colors which prove extravagantly superior in the Blu-ray - it also show a tad more information in the frame. The resized captures don't tell the whole story but you may click the Blu-ray to full-resolution to get a better indication of how improved the detail actually is. The color improvements are a bit more obvious by looking at the caps below which showcase truer skin tones, and more vibrancy in such areas as Jennifer Connelly's lipstick, Melissa George's blonde hair etc. Certain scenes, like in the diner, have a heavy green bias in the Blu-ray. Viewers with higher-end systems may also note how limited the digital noise in the Blu-ray.


"...a stellar 1080P transfer.... It looks and sounds vastly superior.... It's really hard not to give it a thumbs up all around!" --Gary Tooze, DVDBeaver


I haven't seen the BD yet, so can anybody explain the apparent discrepancy? Is Tooze seeing something different from what others are seeing in the screen shots?


John


----------



## Kram Sacul

The reviewer at DVDBeaver has been consistently clueless.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John J. Puccio* /forum/post/14328240
> 
> 
> "...a stellar 1080P transfer.... It looks and sounds vastly superior.... It's really hard not to give it a thumbs up all around!" --Gary Tooze, DVDBeaver



I'm not convinced at all Beaver even knows what DNR is and looks like or cares about EE much. Let's wait and see. Some of the stills are very troublesome looking.


----------



## BIG ED




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14328257
> 
> 
> The reviewer at DVDBeaver has been consistently clueless.



+1

BIG fan of their comparisons.

Never a fan of their reviews.


----------



## BIG ED

So, the BD version is the same & also be included on the list?

Thanks.

High-Def Digest:

""Top Gun" hits Blu-ray almost a year after the HD DVD version, and nearly four years after a recent standard-def DVD special edition. Paramount does not appear to have remastered the film for this latest incarnation, utilizing what is obviously the same master."
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/941/topgun.html


----------



## paku

Title: The Lives of Others (2006) 

Studio: Sony

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: An extremely nice and film-like transfer, but edge enhancement is visible in certain shots. Most of the time it's barely noticeable though.

URLs: Example of stronger EE , Example of lighter EE , What it's like most of the time (only very faint effect visible along jawline)


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/14341266
> 
> 
> Title: The Lives of Others (2006)
> 
> Studio: Sony
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: EE
> 
> Time Codes:
> 
> Comments: An extremely nice and film-like transfer, but edge enhancement is visible in certain shots. Most of the time it's barely noticeable though.
> 
> URLs: Example of stronger EE , Example of lighter EE , What it's like most of the time (only very faint effect visible along jawline)



Yes, I remember the EE on this one.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks paku. In addition to the EE there was also sporadic flashes of dirt and speckles.


----------



## paku

Mhafner, you're not going to add the Donnie Brasco and Reservoir Dogs entries I reported on the previous page?


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14327391
> 
> 
> Yet some of us say it isn't there as you describe it. But you would rather dismiss those of us who say it isn't there.
> 
> Ok get ya and i'll move on.



Huh? What is it? Is there no EE according to you so you don't want it on the list or is the EE not strong enough for you? I thought it was the latter. What do you want? Run the list? Majority votes on the presence or absence of EE?

I think you don't get it. This list is here to give people information about technical attributes of transfers, especially attributes that make it look different from the original sources they came from, attributes that can be called digital artifacts. It's pointless to pout because some title was added or not that you had a/no problem with. If you have evidence the EE is like that on release prints and therefore it's no EE (since no DI) present it, please. If you don't, by all means, just move on. The transfer is not problematic for you. Enjoy it. Others have issues with it. This is not a list of titles everybody must have issues with!

To quote the introductory text:

This is also NOT a list of the 'worst' HD disks out there (although some examples on this list arguably are among the worst HD released so far). It's simply a list of disks and some technical issues that have been identified on them. The extent and visibility of the issue can vary from disk to disk and of course also from display to display as people watch the disk. As such we don't give a rating of good or bad but merely confirm the presence of the 'artifact'. What people make out of it on their systems is their call.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/14357359
> 
> 
> Mhafner, you're not going to add the Donnie Brasco and Reservoir Dogs entries I reported on the previous page?



Done.


----------



## Thunderbolt8

does anyone know if the problems with 3:10 to yuma only apply to the Region A version, or do they apply to Region B discs (especially the german version) as well?


----------



## paku

The UK disc looks to be identical judging from the specs. From what I've seen it seems to be an incredibly small issue, especially since the rest looks so good, but it would be interesting to see the German release. Is it possible the problem was already in the DI?


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/14374279
> 
> 
> The UK disc looks to be identical judging from the specs. From what I've seen it seems to be an incredibly small issue, especially since the rest looks so good, but it would be interesting to see the German release. Is it possible the problem was already in the DI?



Unlikely as it would show up clearly on test film outs.


----------



## danpass

thanks, and awesome idea.



Is there a list of all the GOOD/GREAT transfers?




.


----------



## Don Borvio

Title: Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001) 

Studio: Mirimax

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Vaseline blurriness over the whole movie. Worst DNR I've personally seen. Where I really noticed it is the Jessie entrance seen into Mooby's.

URLs: Viper98's pics of his TV playing it Look at the 3rd of Dante's face. No real detail there or in the 3 bottom frames. Maybe someone can post real screenshots.


----------



## mhafner

I'm sorry but pics of someone's TV are not admissible evidence on the list.


----------



## Don Borvio

Alright, I wish I had a bluray player on the comp to get the shots. I thought Xylon might have did some a long while ago, but I was too tired to do much searching.


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Borvio* /forum/post/14377250
> 
> 
> Alright, I wish I had a bluray player on the comp to get the shots. I thought Xylon might have did some a long while ago, but I was too tired to do much searching.



Don,


I recently took a look at many scenes in the _Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back_ Blu-ray. I didn't get the impression that you got. A "vaseline" look implies that high frequency details like facial pores have been robbed by the DNR process, and ghosting trails may be evident. This BD actually retains those details and very fine film grain along with it. It doesn't have the sharpest photography, but I don't think excessive DNR is here.


There are problems with it, however. I noticed quite a few edge halos and compression noise.


----------



## MSmith83

I would like to add that I finally viewed the entire run of _Reservoir Dogs_ on Blu-ray. The DNR was quite strong during the entire run-time and definitely belongs on the list. Edge enhancement was also evident in many scenes. Yet another disappointment from LionsGate.


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John J. Puccio* /forum/post/14328240
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the BD yet, so can anybody explain the apparent discrepancy? Is Tooze seeing something different from what others are seeing in the screen shots?



Well, John, there are varying degrees of accuracy when it comes to spotting DNR. As you know, humans are susceptible to either over-report or under-report some things. It wasn't until recently that many "professional" reviewers started to understand how the DNR process is destroying the look of our favorite films. Before forums like this outlined the problem, "professional" reviewers would grossly under-report it. As you can see, even Tooze made an addendum to his _Dark City_ review to make mention of the DNR. I see that you mentioned it as well in your own review now that you've had the chance to see it. By the way, thanks for the review.


I apologize to the OP for going off-topic.


----------



## paku

I've uploaded a couple of shots from Life of Brian you can add to the entry:

Example 1 , Example 2 , Example 3 


There is a hint of the Longest Day/painting filter look, especially in the first one.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/14383277
> 
> 
> I've uploaded a couple of shots from Life of Brian you can add to the entry:
> 
> Example 1 , Example 2 , Example 3
> 
> 
> There is a hint of the Longest Day/painting filter look, especially in the first one.



Yes, looks like oil painting, not film.


----------



## Kram Sacul

You think Bruce Almighty looks a little filtered?

Example 1 , Example 2


----------



## Don Borvio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/14381500
> 
> 
> Don,
> 
> 
> I recently took a look at many scenes in the _Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back_ Blu-ray. I didn't get the impression that you got. A "vaseline" look implies that high frequency details like facial pores have been robbed by the DNR process, and ghosting trails may be evident. This BD actually retains those details and very fine film grain along with it. It doesn't have the sharpest photography, but I don't think excessive DNR is here.
> 
> 
> There are problems with it, however. I noticed quite a few edge halos and compression noise.



That could be, it could just be the way the scene(s) is/are shot. I just remember that shot being soft and not just like Star Trek 60's style female close-up soft, it was a even softness across the whole picture. Also I didn't see the ghosting/ringing. I'll pay more attention next time I watch it.


----------



## paku

Reposting due to crash:


Title: Clear and Present Danger (1994) 

Studio: Paramount

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes:

Comments: Waxy and smeared faces everywhere.

URLs: Cinema Squid's captures


----------



## paku

Title: Escape from New York (1981) 

Studio: Optimum

Disc: Blu-ray (UK)

Problem: EE, SD master?

Time Codes:

Comments: Edge enhancement, aliasing, very little detail. Likely an SD upscale.

URLs: Blu-ray vs. DVD


----------



## lgans316

Reposting due to database failure and data loss.


Title: Days of Glory

Studio: Metrodome

Disc: Blu-ray (UK)

Problem: Jaggies

Time Codes:Whole movie

Comments:


1) Probably an incorrect filtering job from the DI.

2) Encoding from 1080i master.


----------



## Rottweiler29

I'm starting to wonder if anyone here actually watches films, or just analyses!


I'm as anal as they come, my missus is always telling me not to be so fussy, but I think this thread has single handidly destroyed every HD DVD/Blu Ray yet made. Even reference quality transfers that have got 5/5 on most sites (like "2001 : A Space Odyssey") have been pulled apart here.


I'll be back though. I need to know what I'm looking out for before I watch "Blade Runner" on Blu Ray tomorrow night...


----------



## Steen DK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rottweiler29* /forum/post/14480638
> 
> 
> Even reference quality transfers that have got 5/5 on most sites (like "2001 : A Space Odyssey") have been pulled apart here.



Nice bit of hyperbole there. Keep it up.


----------



## paku

I didn't wait all this time, and I'm not paying over $30 per movie, to watch DVD+. If you feel content and feel that you get a better experience simply because it says "Blu-ray" on the case, regardless of what's actually on the disc, then the list is not for you (and rest assured you will be far from alone in this; see a certain other forum or some of the "most sites" you mention).


And just because a title is on the list doesn't mean it's automatically terrible, it can be that it just has some specific problems. Screenshots help to point them out, and you can decide for yourself if you think it's going to bother you. I plan on buying _3:10 to Yuma_ in the near future, because personally the problem doesn't seem very noticeable to me, but I don't contest the fact that the problem exists.


As for _2001_, it's good but I don't think it's quite as good as it could have been, especially when you consider it's a 70mm film. Hopefully there will be a completely new transfer some day to prove me right, and we will see if the EE is in the actual film.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/14482727
> 
> 
> I didn't wait all this time, and I'm not paying over $30 per movie, to watch DVD+. If you feel content and feel that you get a better experience simply because it says "Blu-ray" on the case, regardless of what's actually on the disc, then the list is not for you (and rest assured you will be far from alone in this; see a certain other forum or some of the "most sites" you mention).
> 
> 
> And just because a title is on the list doesn't mean it's automatically terrible, it can be that it just has some specific problems. Screenshots help to point them out, and you can decide for yourself if you think it's going to bother you. I plan on buying _3:10 to Yuma_ in the near future, because personally the problem doesn't seem very noticeable to me, but I don't contest the fact that the problem exists.
> 
> 
> As for _2001_, it's good but I don't think it's quite as good as it could have been, especially when you consider it's a 70mm film. Hopefully there will be a completely new transfer some day to prove me right, and we will see if the EE is in the actual film.



Nailed it.


----------



## Rottweiler29




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/14482727
> 
> 
> I didn't wait all this time, and I'm not paying over $30 per movie, to watch DVD+. If you feel content and feel that you get a better experience simply because it says "Blu-ray" on the case, regardless of what's actually on the disc, then the list is not for you (and rest assured you will be far from alone in this; see a certain other forum or some of the "most sites" you mention).
> 
> 
> And just because a title is on the list doesn't mean it's automatically terrible, it can be that it just has some specific problems. Screenshots help to point them out, and you can decide for yourself if you think it's going to bother you. I plan on buying _3:10 to Yuma_ in the near future, because personally the problem doesn't seem very noticeable to me, but I don't contest the fact that the problem exists.
> 
> 
> As for _2001_, it's good but I don't think it's quite as good as it could have been, especially when you consider it's a 70mm film. Hopefully there will be a completely new transfer some day to prove me right, and we will see if the EE is in the actual film.



So if a Blu Ray comes out of a film you love but it has some EE, you don't buy it? What if the DVD had some compression artefacts? And the VHS jumped? There must be a lot of films you saw on TV as a youngster that you've still never owned.


If the picture is an absolute travesty I'll skip it. If the Blu Ray isn't a significant improvement over the DVD, I'll skip it. But I'm not going to search high and low until I can find proof that the wallpaper stripes in "The Departed" seem to fade a little when the camera pans.


----------



## BIG ED




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rottweiler29* /forum/post/14486362
> 
> 
> So if a Blu Ray comes out of a film you love but it has some EE, you don't buy it? What if the DVD had some compression artefacts?



Read the post you quoted.

The answer is there.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rottweiler29* /forum/post/14486362
> 
> 
> And the VHS jumped? There must be a lot of films you saw on TV as a youngster that you've still never owned.



What does any of that have to do w/the price of tea in China or the post you quoted?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rottweiler29* /forum/post/14486362
> 
> 
> If the picture is an absolute travesty I'll skip it. If the Blu Ray isn't a significant improvement over the DVD, I'll skip it.



That's what this thread is about!


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rottweiler29* /forum/post/14486362
> 
> 
> But I'm not going to search high and low until I can find proof that the wallpaper stripes in "The Departed" seem to fade a little when the camera pans.



That's your choice.

Nobody here is going too make you do that.

However, you have no right to tell anyone else they can not do that.


----------



## mhafner

Stick to the subject of this list, please (discuss specific discs and their problems).


----------



## Kram Sacul

It's already on the list for EE but DVDBeaver has some captures of U-571. Pretty overrated transfer. This , this , and this look DNRed. Would be interesting to see a comparison against the HD-DVD to see if more DNR and EE was applied for the BRD.


----------



## BIG ED




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14490045
> 
> 
> It's already on the list for EE but DVDBeaver has some captures of U-571. Pretty overrated transfer. This , this , and this look DNRed. Would be interesting to see a comparison against the HD-DVD to see if more DNR and EE was applied for the BRD.



Or the D-VHS.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14490045
> 
> 
> It's already on the list for EE but DVDBeaver has some captures of U-571. Pretty overrated transfer. This , this , and this look DNRed. Would be interesting to see a comparison against the HD-DVD to see if more DNR and EE was applied for the BRD.


 http://www.dvdfile.com/review/u-571-bd-12624 



> Quote:
> Universal has once again imposed what appears to be a *tad of edge enhancement* that leaves residual, *modest halos visible* that must be watched for to spot. Based on *skin textures, I suspect that noise reduction had been applied*, and a little sharpening came into play.


----------



## Xylon

Watch out for U-571 this weekend


----------



## lgans316

Both Warner and DFW versions of The Aviator have application of high frequency EE on certain scenes. The EE on the Dutch encode appears slightly pronounced but less DNR-ed than the Warner version.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Looks like Nightmare Before Christmas is DNRed. EE is also visible on a few shots (ie Jack against the moon).


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14524143
> 
> 
> Both Warner and DFW versions of The Aviator have application of high frequency EE on certain scenes. The EE on the Dutch encode appears slightly pronounced but less DNR-ed than the Warner version.



How bad is the DNR on Aviator? On the 35mm print it was dreadful.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14569059
> 
> 
> How bad is the DNR on Aviator? On the 35mm print it was dreadful.



The U.S encode has the top layer of grain removed but the good news is grain is still there. The DFW version preserves the additional layer of grain but gets noisy at times. I can't confidently comment about DNR on Aviator but EE is noticeable in few shots. I will try to post the time codes by end of this week.


----------



## lyris




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14568260
> 
> 
> Looks like Nightmare Before Christmas is DNRed. EE is also visible on a few shots (ie Jack against the moon).



I don't think that's EE, it's likely a lens effect. Certainly DNR'd though.


In addition to film grain removal, there are dirt and scratch removal artefacts (screen grabs at link):
http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/09/01...val-artefacts/


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lyris* /forum/post/14570397
> 
> 
> In addition to film grain removal, there are dirt and scratch removal artefacts (screen grabs at link):
> http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/09/01...val-artefacts/



And I thought that was a thing of the past...


----------



## msgohan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14568260
> 
> 
> Looks like Nightmare Before Christmas is DNRed.



!!! And the missing limbs... Such a strange choice to be DNR'd. Who were they trying to impress?










After seeing the fairly grainy promo I was expecting the same on the actual disc, just with hopefully better detail.


----------



## Kram Sacul

A comparison of the promo vs the actual Blu-ray would be interesting. The captures from the promo are down at the moment.


----------



## lgans316

Posting this again.


There will be blood - U.S Blu-ray


Time code: 08:12 ~ 08:21

Problem: Thin and transparent vertical line appears on the left hand side. Is this a lens issue or some other problem ? Please clarify.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14577342
> 
> 
> Posting this again.
> 
> There will be blood - U.S Blu-ray
> 
> Time code: 08:12 ~ 08:21
> 
> Problem: Thin and transparent vertical line appears on the left hand side. Is this a lens issue or some other problem ? Please clarify.



Don't see that line here.


----------



## BIG ED

"Transformers"?

Only the HD DVD or the BD as well?

Thanks.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Any thoughts?


Title: How the West Was Won (1962) 

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE

Time Codes:

Comments: on both Smilebox and regular versions

URLs: Example 1 Example 2


----------



## msgohan

Surprised to see that Lethal Weapon isn't on the list yet as DNR screamed at me from the first few moments. I'm not sure I succeeded in getting screenshots that illustrate the effects, as this is the kind that's more obvious in motion.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Lethal Weapon (1987)

Studio: Warner

Disc: BD (USA), HD-DVD (USA)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Temporal DNR causing unnatural and partially frozen grain movement, smearing, and disappearing image information in motion. Details of patterned wallpaper, clothing, etc. phase in and out of existence, especially during camera pans. Most times the movie cuts to a different camera angle, the picture is uncorrupted for a single frame and then grain-wiped for the rest of the shot (this switch isn't visible during playback).

URLs: Remnants of print artifacts frozen for an extra frame: A - B - C / Phasing details: A - B / Shot change: A - B / Another shot change: A - B 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First Blood is another Lionsgate catalog with digital scratch removal artifacts in addition to the previously listed DNR.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: First Blood (1982)

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR, digital scratch removal artifacts, minor EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Virtually no film grain, wax-like presentation, and an abundance of ghosting artifacts. Scratch removal mistakenly removes actual picture details like parts of bullets and light reflections. The image is also sharpened slightly but without visible halos. StudioCanal/Optimum's releases use the same bad master but without this digital processing.

URLs: Screenshot comparison thread 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Part II has digital scratch removal applied but I didn't see any actual details mistakenly nixed by it. So I guess it shouldn't be listed for that?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)

Studio: Lions Gate, Optimum, Momentum/StudioCanal/Universal

Disc: BD (USA), BD (UK), HD-DVD (UK/France/Australia/Germany)

Problem: Inverse telecine (IVTC) error(?)

Time Codes: 1:23:57, 1:24:51

Comments: This appears to be an IVTC error of some sort, motion becomes jerky and frames are more or less duplicated but obviously interpolated from half-height frames (fields), replacing fields that are dropped entirely. It happens twice but only for a few seconds. The DVD doesn't have this issue.

URLs: Thread with video sample of the issue 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Does anyone want to confirm or deny the aliasing I see on vertical lines on the USA release of Rambo III ?


----------



## TheLion

1408 US Weinstein/"Genius" version - Aliasing







throughout the movie - same as Dutch import

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1066204


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14260070
> 
> 
> I am heartbroken to report that some moderate but judicious grain scrubbing have been performed by Lionsgate at least on the defective MPEG-2 encoded copy of The Descent that I have in possession.
> 
> *Evidence:* Compare the first deleted scene shot inside the house where the ladies chatter vs house scene on the actual movie. You can find a moderate veneer of film grain on the deleted scene which has been judiciously scrubbed on the actual scene. IMO I found this to be quite distracting.
> 
> 
> Can someone check my claims with your copy ?



My claims on mild application of DNR on the MPEG-2 version has been validated here.


Special thanks to Whiggles and msgohan.

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc..._insanity.html 


mhafner,


Can you please double check ? It's definitely there.



> Quote:
> There will be blood - U.S Blu-ray
> 
> 
> Time code: 08:12 ~ 08:21
> 
> Problem: Thin and transparent vertical line appears on the left hand side.


----------



## paku

Title: The Doors (1991) 

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Obvious EE in some scenes, and plastic faces everywhere.

URLs: Cinema Squid's captures 


Also looks like there's some kind of aliasing/noise around many edges but I'm not sure if it's just the chroma bug of the decoder.


Looking again at the list, I gotta say, Lions Gate has a terrible track record when it comes to older catalogue titles.


----------



## Damnationdoormat

 The Godfather ...




Not too impressive...is that some DNR I see? That shot of Brando looking down reeks of it...


----------



## paku

It's more likely a dodgy Photoshop clone brush/patch job; you have to remember that the state of the film before the restoration was abysmal. The grain is still all there on the collar as well.


----------



## Kram Sacul

If the whole shot looks like that then yeah processing was applied. The rest of the captures look good to me.


----------



## JBlacklow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Damnationdoormat* /forum/post/14668004
> 
> The Godfather ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too impressive...is that some DNR I see? That shot of Brando looking down reeks of it...



Maybe now this nonsense can stop before it gets too far:


> Quote:
> While I have no problem answering specific questions in regard to the restorations on film or video, I am obviously not about to review my own work, nor that of the restoration team.
> 
> *At this point I can tell you that I have received final product and find it representative of the 4k data files and all digital files thereafter derived.*
> 
> 
> The entire team at Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment, MPI (Warner Digital), Pro-Tek and POP Sound worked extremely diligently to create a product representative of the wishes of the filmmakers, further *confirmed by the original approved dye transfer print of The Godfather as well as representative surviving prints of The Godfather Part II.*
> 
> 
> Our goal in creating the restorations was to replicate as closely as possible the intent and look of the films when originally released within the limitations of modern motion picture emulsions as well as home video digital technology. *That intent has likewise been the basis of the new Blu-ray software, for which no digital noise reduction and no grain reduction have been used.
> 
> 
> The films, as represented on Blu-ray, are as close as technologically possible to viewing The Godfather(s) on newly restored 35mm prints.*


 http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...7-post149.html 


That's right from the source, not the studio PR dept.


----------



## mhafner

I watched "Vantage Point" and found it lacking detail and sharpness. Looked often too smooth and blurry (for example crowd shots). Did I have a bad day or what? Looked processed to me.







I remember a better looking trailer.


----------



## paku

Really? These still shots all look reference quality to me; sharp, detailed, and a layer of fine grain.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/14698948
> 
> 
> Really? These still shots all look reference quality to me; sharp, detailed, and a layer of fine grain.



These are not even 1080p pics. And no crowd shots with thousands of people.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14698842
> 
> 
> I watched "Vantage Point" and found it lacking detail and sharpness. Looked often too smooth and blurry (for example crowd shots). Did I have a bad day or what? Looked processed to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember a better looking trailer.



Sorry mhafner. Whiggles doesn't agree with you.









http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc...t_shot_at.html


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *paku* /forum/post/14665774
> 
> 
> Title: The Doors (1991)
> 
> Studio: Lions Gate
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR/EE
> 
> Time Codes: Whole film
> 
> Comments: Obvious EE in some scenes, and plastic faces everywhere.
> 
> URLs: Cinema Squid's captures
> 
> 
> Also looks like there's some kind of aliasing/noise around many edges but I'm not sure if it's just the chroma bug of the decoder.
> 
> 
> Looking again at the list, I gotta say, Lions Gate has a terrible track record when it comes to older catalogue titles.



It does look like the grain has been filtered away when you check the backgrounds of each shot......Pity as it's a fine film.


----------



## paku




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14701113
> 
> 
> These are not even 1080p pics. And no crowd shots with thousands of people.



You need to log in to get the 1080p shots.


----------



## mhafner

Eeeek!
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/salo.htm 

Salo with EE and DNR.


----------



## paku

Yeah, terrible. I was hesitant to submit an entry to the list because it's a checkdisc, but I really doubt the final product is going to be any different.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14701188
> 
> 
> Sorry mhafner. Whiggles doesn't agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc...t_shot_at.html



Maybe he had a bad day.









Anyway, it's not list material, just not as good as I think it should be.


----------



## mhafner

 http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0368891/ has EE. Apart from that it looks nice.


----------



## Kram Sacul

From the captures here and here Nightmare on Elm Street is all DNRed up. Pretty greasy looking.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msgohan* /forum/post/14659110
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Title: Lethal Weapon (1987)
> 
> Studio: Warner
> 
> Disc: BD (USA), HD-DVD (USA)
> 
> Problem: DNR
> 
> Time Codes: Whole movie
> 
> Comments: Temporal DNR causing unnatural and partially frozen grain movement, smearing, and disappearing image information in motion. Details of patterned wallpaper, clothing, etc. phase in and out of existence, especially during camera pans. Most times the movie cuts to a different camera angle, the picture is uncorrupted for a single frame and then grain-wiped for the rest of the shot (this switch isn't visible during playback).
> 
> URLs: Remnants of print artifacts frozen for an extra frame: A - B - C / Phasing details: A - B / Shot change: A - B / Another shot change: A - B
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What exactly are we supposed to see in the the phasing details example? Or is this only relevant in motion?


----------



## msgohan

Just remove that, I realized the pics can't show it properly.


----------



## msgohan

An example of a movie without the shot-change protection Lethal Weapon and most other DNR'd titles have.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Saw III (2006)

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: DNR / banding

Time Codes: Whole movie / 0:01:01 and 1:37:15

Comments: Temporal DNR causing detail loss, clumpy and unnaturally-moving grain, and a lot of motion trailing in darker scenes even across shot changes.

URLs: Remaining detail level / Slow motion shot showing trailing (these frames should have matched exactly since this is digital slow motion accomplished by doubling frames): A - B / Shot change with details from previous frame still visible: A - B / Another shot change: A - B / Banding: 1 and 2 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## FoxyMulder

Doesn't Mr and Mrs Smith also have that frozen grain which is so annoying when you see it in backgrounds ?


----------



## msgohan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Young Guns (1988)

Studio: Lions Gate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Aliasing (Jaggies)

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: Visible all the time. Probably a very poor SD upscale.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## paku




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msgohan* /forum/post/14736333
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Title: Young Guns (1988)
> 
> Studio: Lions Gate
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: Aliasing (Jaggies)
> 
> Time Codes: Whole movie
> 
> Comments: Visible all the time. Probably a very poor SD upscale.
> 
> URLs: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Lions Gate strikes again...


----------



## Steen DK

I realise that Universal/Studio Canal's HD-DVD of _Ran_ doesn't have English subs and therefore isn't of much interest to most people here, but you still might like to know that it's just another SD upscale as shown by the screen-grabs over at the Bullets'n'Babes forum . It also has quite a bit of black crush.


----------



## lgans316

Black crush could be an artistic decision too. A director who likes to crush blacks "Mr. Paul Greengrass".


----------



## Kram Sacul

So that makes 3 upconverts from Optimum so far?


----------



## eric.exe

Title: Hulk (2003)

Studio: Universal

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE/sharpening

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Obvious EE

URLs: http://www.imagebam.com/image/6dee4513098235 


might be some DNR, but don't have anything to compare it to


----------



## Steen DK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14740894
> 
> 
> Black crush could be an artistic decision too. A director who likes to crush blacks "Mr. Paul Greengrass".



True. I'm not sure if the HD-DVD is too dark or the DVD is too bright.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14740975
> 
> 
> So that makes 3 upconverts from Optimum so far?


 You can add the _La Haine_ HD-DVD to that list - if it wasn't part of it already.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eric.exe* /forum/post/14741031
> 
> 
> Title: Hulk (2003)
> 
> Studio: Universal
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: EE/sharpening
> 
> Time Codes: Whole film
> 
> Comments: Obvious EE
> 
> URLs: http://www.imagebam.com/image/6dee4513098235
> 
> 
> might be some DNR, but don't have anything to compare it to



Thanks eric.


1) Is the EE on the same levels as the HD DVD ?

2) How about print impurities ? The HD DVD video displayed specs of dust and dirt throughout the running time.


Please check and revert back.


----------



## Kram Sacul

It's the same transfer so all the artifacts are still there. I'd really like to know if any DNR was applied on the BRD though.


----------



## Thunderbolt8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteenDK* /forum/post/14741879
> 
> You can add the _La Haine_ HD-DVD to that list - if it wasn't part of it already.



does anyone know if the BD is as well upconverted?


----------



## Vincent Pereira




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/14747511
> 
> 
> does anyone know if the BD is as well upconverted?


*LA HAINE* is clearly _not_ an upconvert. Jeez, just look at those screen caps comparing the HD-DVD to the DVD: http://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/foru...pic.php?t=4725 


Now, to my eyes *LA HAINE* in HD does seem to suffer from DNR, but in no way, shape, or form is it an "upconvert". The HD-DVD caps show a substantial increase in real picture detail. Just look at that first screen cap comparison, it's obvious.


Vincent


----------



## Kram Sacul

None of the captures contain any real above PAL resolution, there's obvious EE halos, and it came from Optimum. Hmm.


----------



## Steen DK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vincent Pereira* /forum/post/14749016
> 
> 
> The HD-DVD caps show a substantial increase in real picture detail. Just look at that first screen cap comparison, it's obvious.



Yeah, I think I might have been a bit hasty there. I mean, the comparison is a bit useless as the regular DVD looks so bad, but the writing on the boxes in picture 6 seems a bit sharper than even a good DVD could handle.


Anyway, it's still a pretty terrible HD release.


----------



## mhafner

Good reading here. For all people who wonder why we have a DNR list and why it matters:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/dv...ney_to_Blu-ray


----------



## paku

Blu-ray.com has published a review of Salò and I think it's safe to add it to the list.


Title: Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (1975) 

Studio: BFI

Disc: BD (UK)

Problem: DNR/EE

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: Extreme EE plus a spotty grain structure due to DNR makes for a very harsh and processed look.

URLs: DVDBeaver captures , Blu-ray.com captures (register for 1080p) 


I really don't know what is up with that reviewer though, giving it a 4.5/5 for video.


> Quote:
> There isn't any contrast boosting or subtle external manipulations that I could detect either.



That's right, there are no _subtle_ external manipulations.



> Quote:
> Finally, the Blu-ray disc does not reveal DNR manipulation of any sort, just a pure, unfiltered image replicating as best as possible Pasolini's vision. As a result the print has retained the original grainy structure present on the film negative.



Maybe it's different when actually watching, but I have a hard time believing there could be such an extreme discrepancy between stills and motion. Heck, the included quote from the BFI technical producer even gives it away:



> Quote:
> Salo was restored using *HD-DVNR* and MTI restoration systems, removing dirt, scratches and stabilizing the image.


----------



## msgohan

Wow, terrible DNR and EE. The EE is obvious even between the image and letterbox border.


Some of those other DVD screenshots really look unwatchable though.


----------



## Johnbutler

I swear, is there any way to find out if they accidentally used an sd PAL master? We should write letters to BFI about this.


----------



## paku

I'm 99% sure that Salo isn't a PAL upscale. It's just a badly processed POS.


BFI actually went to Italy to do a new transfer from original film elements, but when looking at the final product one can do nothing but wonder why they even bothered in the first place as it was clearly a complete waste of money.


Red Desert seems to have fared better especially in terms of retaining the grain structure, but the grain size is huge, and almost looks closer to 16mm film like that of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre than any 35mm production. There also seems to be some amount of processing and EE, apparently having been transferred/mastered the same way as Salo, only not that much. In any case I have my doubts that it is anywhere near its maximum potential on Blu-ray.


While BFI may purport to have the filmmakers' intentions in mind and having the utmost respect for the original work etc. etc., I think this shows they have little understanding of what the processes used actually do to the film.


I'm not sure if writing a letter is going to change anything, but if you do, you should probably concentrate on the problems with digital processing and "enhancing" instead of upscaling. And who knows, maybe they just had a bad stint in Italy with these two films?


----------



## mhafner

I hope Criterion is not stepping into the same traps and we can get the correct versions of BFI disks later from them.


----------



## mhafner

Baraka has EE/ringing at times.


----------



## MSmith83

Has anyone had a chance to view _Monster's Ball_ yet? The grabs here look horrid with DNR and edge ringing both being problems.


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> This Blu-ray debut looks so good at times - I was zooming in to seek edge-enhancement but came up empty - it looks clean - no DNR either.













But of course the screenshots on DVDBeaver are not accurate of what's on the disc and Monstar's Ball is actually reference quality.


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/14968648
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of course the screenshots on DVDBeaver are not accurate of what's on the disc and Monstar's Ball is actually reference quality.



On a related note, I did screen _Baraka_ and thought it looked very good overall in the moments I saw. I was going to comment on it in the _Baraka_ thread, but I see the usual fights occurring there. It's a shame when both sides resort to condescension and name-calling. It completely defies the purpose of this forum, which is to provide varying opinions and insights to help people with their buying decisions.


There are only a few "professional" reviewers who I regularly trust when it comes to their opinion on image artifacts and level of processing while keeping the technical aspects of the filming process and background in mind. One of them is Kris Deering, who doesn't go into software threads to start a fight with other members who don't agree with his opinion.


----------



## mhafner

Did you see EE in Baraka?

I added "The Sixth Sense". The German Blu Ray has no DNR (or much less). It's region free and the one to get.


----------



## micnic77

Title: Rendition

Studio: Entertainment in Video / New Line Cinema

Disc: BD (UK)

Problem: strong DNR

Time Codes: Whole film

Comments: DNR at the level of Pan's Labyrinth (US)


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *micnic77* /forum/post/14970888
> 
> 
> Title: Rendition
> 
> Studio: Entertainment in Video / New Line Cinema
> 
> Disc: BD (UK)
> 
> Problem: strong DNR
> 
> Time Codes: Whole film
> 
> Comments: DNR at the level of Pan's Labyrinth (US)



Can we have some stills?


----------



## micnic77




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/15014961
> 
> 
> Can we have some stills?



I can't take real screenshots but here are photos off the screen from the untouched trailer und the same scene in the movie (not the same frame but the difference should be easy enough to see):


trailer
  


movie


----------



## mhafner

Added Zulu to the list.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Went through the list and...


Cat People, Gattaca, and the Nightmare Before Christmas should have the DNR/EE attribute.


Nightmare on Elm Street is obviously DNRed to hell but it hasn't been released in the US yet. Could it still be listed though?


----------



## lgans316

Mhafner,


You can confidently add *Walk The Line* to your list but please don't ask me to do screenshots when I don't possess the required tools to snap them.


Description comments:


Title: Walk The Line (Extended version)

Studio: FOX

Disc: BD (NL/FR)

Problem: Low to Moderate DNR / Mild EE (DNR is on par with Sixth Sense)

Time Codes: Parts of the movie


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/15081281
> 
> 
> Nightmare on Elm Street is obviously DNRed to hell but it hasn't been released in the US yet. Could it still be listed though?



The list is international. The disc country must be specified.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/14962110
> 
> 
> Has anyone had a chance to view _Monster's Ball_ yet? The grabs here look horrid with DNR and edge ringing both being problems.



Ouch.

No DNR either they say. What are they smoking there at the Beaver?


----------



## mhafner

"The Happening" is filtered from start to finish.







The deleted scenes are too but differently.


----------



## mhafner

Interesting site/forum for various reasons:
http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/


----------



## mhafner

"Predator 2" is filtered from start to finish.


----------



## Vincent Pereira




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/15165078
> 
> 
> Interesting site/forum for various reasons:
> http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/



Thanks for posting that! Great website.


Vincent


----------



## mhafner

Added "The Dark Knight" to the list.


----------



## mhafner

Achievment of the day: Getting banned at forum.blu-ray.com.









Apparently the truth hurts too much in some quarters.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/15213082
> 
> 
> Achievment of the day: Getting banned at forum.blu-ray.com.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the truth hurts too much in some quarters.



Wear it as a badge of honor.


That place has some _serious_ problems with how the forum is run. I no longer post there for a variety of reasons. I haven't been banned, but wouldn't be surprised if I am simply based on making this post.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Thanks benes, good work.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15214806
> 
> 
> Wear it as a badge of honor.
> 
> 
> That place has some _serious_ problems with how the forum is run. I no longer post there for a variety of reasons. I haven't been banned, but wouldn't be surprised if I am simply based on making this post.



So, no more palling around with insiders, Rob?


----------



## Kroenen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Achievment of the day: Getting banned at forum.blu-ray.com.



What took you so long?











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15214806
> 
> 
> 
> That place has some _serious_ problems with how the forum is run.



Yes it does. Remember when the framing issue was discovered on POTC? There was a Mod there (Deci) that was telling everyone that the issue lasted only 10 seconds. All posts that had 10 minutes mentioned were edited by him to read 10 seconds in some lame, and unnecessary attempt, at spin control.


I was banned for telling him that he was wrong concerning the length of time that the framing issue occurs; and that it wasn’t right for him to be editing every single post to read 10 seconds.


----------



## Whiggles

KUNG FU PANDA has some mild ringing, much like THE SIMPSONS MOVIE but less pronounced, throughout its running time, indicative of a low pass filter used to remove the highest levels of detail. This can be seen in the screen captures at DVD Beaver and Cinema Squid . (Pay particular attention to the letterboxing at the top and bottom of the frame, where it's easiest to spot, or the branches in this shot .) It's reasonably mild, but it's definitely not the reference quality transfer some have suggested.


Title: Kung Fu Panda

Studio: Paramount/DreamWorks

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: Ringing

Comments: Mild ringing throughout film, indicative of a low pass filter.

URLs: Example 1 Example 2


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whiggles* /forum/post/15224299
> 
> 
> KUNG FU PANDA has some mild ringing, much like THE SIMPSONS MOVIE but less pronounced, throughout its running time, indicative of a low pass filter used to remove the highest levels of detail. This can be seen in the screen captures at DVD Beaver and Cinema Squid . (Pay particular attention to the letterboxing at the top and bottom of the frame, where it's easiest to spot, or the branches in this shot .) It's reasonably mild, but it's definitely not the reference quality transfer some have suggested.
> 
> 
> Title: Kung Fu Panda
> 
> Studio: Paramount/DreamWorks
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: Ringing
> 
> Comments: Mild ringing throughout film, indicative of a low pass filter.
> 
> URLs: Example 1 Example 2



If this remains on uncompressed stills it's not exactly subtle.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whiggles* /forum/post/15224299
> 
> 
> KUNG FU PANDA has some mild ringing, much like THE SIMPSONS MOVIE but less pronounced, throughout its running time, indicative of a low pass filter used to remove the highest levels of detail. This can be seen in the screen captures at DVD Beaver and Cinema Squid . (Pay particular attention to the letterboxing at the top and bottom of the frame, where it's easiest to spot, or the branches in this shot .) It's reasonably mild, but it's definitely not the reference quality transfer some have suggested.
> 
> 
> Title: Kung Fu Panda
> 
> Studio: Paramount/DreamWorks
> 
> Disc: BD (USA)
> 
> Problem: Ringing
> 
> Comments: Mild ringing throughout film, indicative of a low pass filter.
> 
> URLs: Example 1 Example 2



Ringing? The Simpson level ringing? or milder than Simpson ringing?


----------



## Whiggles




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/15227718
> 
> 
> Ringing? The Simpson level ringing? or milder than Simpson ringing?



Definitely milder, but still present throughout.


----------



## cakefoo

Screens of the Blu-ray version of Army of Darkness can be found at Blu-ray.com. They gave it a 4.5/5, and say


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Svet Atanasov* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "I did not notice any disturbing patterns of edge enhancement"



So that means no EE for the Blu-ray, right?

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=1524&show=screenshots You tell me.


----------



## lgans316

Title: Transporter 1

Studio: Asmik Ace / EuropaCorp / Sony

Disc: BD (Japan)

Problem: DNR smearing

Time Codes: Most parts of the movie

Comments: Encoded from an old transfer


----------



## Damnationdoormat

 *The Truman Show* has been ruined.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Looks like they added DNR and EE to an otherwise good transfer. I don't remember the broadcast HD version looking that processed but it's been awhile since I've seen it. Will have to view comparison captures. At least the transfer doesn't have that godawful yellow tint and screwed up framing that the SE dvd has.


Why do all of my favorite 1990s films look like crap on Blu-ray? *Dark City*







, *Gattaca*, *Run Lola Run*, *Nightmare Before Christmas*, and now *Truman Show*.


----------



## lgans316

Title: Disturbia

Studio: DreamWorks

Disc: BD (U.S.A)

Problem: DNR

Time Codes: Most parts of the movie

Comments: Grain removal up to a point where texture and facial close-up details are on the verge of becoming soft and waxy (similar to MPEG-2 version of The Descent.)


Member msgohan will be able to provide screenshots.


Kram,


The dvdbeaver caps from Truman Show doesn't seem to indicate any overzealous application of DNR. Let's wait for Xylon's comparison thread.


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Damnationdoormat* /forum/post/15288238
> 
> *The Truman Show* has been ruined.



It's interesting when we can attribute a particular processed look to a single studio. I didn't even know it was Paramount that handles this movie, yet I immediately thought of Paramount after seeing the qualities of the image.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Damnationdoormat* /forum/post/15288238
> 
> *The Truman Show* has been ruined.



Looks like sharpening...


----------



## mhafner

Added some titles (including Narnia 1).


----------



## Xylon

has anybody seen ELF?


oh my goodness


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/15377209
> 
> 
> Added some titles (including Narnia 1).



Narnia is Walt Disney not Universal and I have a slightly different opinion on the use of DNR on this particular film....I believe the smearing in some scenes is an attempt to mix live action and CGI and create a stylistic fast motion blur effect often seen on many older films when the camera pans as otherwise things would appear just too perfect. I also believe some of the effects CGI work is not that great and this was additionally done to cover that fact up.


I believe the extra's even discuss this and mention it.


Just my thoughts on that film though and i'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of very light DNR and minor EE in some scenes as most films out there have it. I also will respect fully your final decision on the matter.


----------



## Xylon

*ELF* brought to you by the same "team" that gave you *Dark City*.


----------



## abintra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/15377452
> 
> 
> has anybody seen ELF?
> 
> 
> oh my goodness



Yeah, Adam Tyner did a good job articulating the problems in his DVD Talk review too.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15377665
> 
> 
> Just my thoughts on that film though and i'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of very light DNR and minor EE in some scenes as most films out there have it. I also will respect fully your final decision on the matter.



I have seen smearing on skin in shots with no CGI. And the smearing in CGI shots is very inconsistent. If some of that was intentional it's poorly executed.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/15381795
> 
> 
> I have seen smearing on skin in shots with no CGI. And the smearing in CGI shots is very inconsistent. If some of that was intentional it's poorly executed.



Fair enough i'll trust your judgment and place the film on the minor issues list in the film grain thread. I do believe some of it is indeed poorly executed CGI and some of it is the film makers trying to recreate motion blur on movement but if it's on some scenes without CGI then that's bad.


I hope you don't mind but i have placed a link to a guide you wrote on DNR within the film grain thread - Although it's related to DVD it still reads well for Blu Ray.


I'll remove it if you don't want it listed there.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Elf looks like a joke. HD without the detail.


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/15382791
> 
> 
> Elf looks like a joke. HD without the detail.



Oh, that's a movie? I thought Xylon was trying to sell us a couple of paintings.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15381912
> 
> 
> I'll remove it if you don't want it listed there.



It's ok. But like 5 years old. Still relevant though.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/15412325
> 
> 
> It's ok. But like 5 years old. Still relevant though.



Thanks and here's one which i think should be on your list.


Title: The X Files - Fight The Future

Studio: Twentieth Century Fox

Disc: BD (U.S.A)

Problem: Macroblocking, Color Banding and especially EE

Time Codes: Macroblocking during the opening caveman scenes....Color Banding during the opening title sequence...The edge enhancement runs from the beginning of the film right to the end thus is throughout the film.

Comments: The edge enhancement is thin but very noticeable on large projection screens and it spoiled my enjoyment.

The color banding is only on the title sequence and i only noticed bad macroblocking during the very opening scenes.


----------



## mhafner

Added X-Files, Truman Show and Elf. Removed "Transformers".


----------



## eric.exe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSmith83* /forum/post/15297065
> 
> 
> ...yet I immediately thought of Paramount after seeing the qualities of the image.



Looks like they used the exact same settings they used on Zulu


----------



## mhafner

Added 'Immortel (ad vitam) (2004)' US BD. SD Upcon. Bad quality.


----------



## Xylon

 The Last Emperor - film like but EE is visible on some scenes


----------



## mhafner

Hidden/Caché: EE and DNR. Old style HD camera video look. Pretty ugly.


----------



## lgans316

Any idea if the The Thing - U.K BD is DNR-ed ?


----------



## esl88

Zodiac looks like it has gone through some DNR. I know this film was shot digitally on the viper cam, but darker scenes have some pretty clear signs, like frozen grain fields. The opening scene is the most apparent. Since digital cameras do have something similar to grain called digital noise, it's possible that Warner did their patented DNR work on yet another new release. I'm wondering if someone can confirm or deny this.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *esl88* /forum/post/15596315
> 
> 
> Zodiac looks like it has gone through some DNR. I know this film was shot digitally on the viper cam, but darker scenes have some pretty clear signs, like frozen grain fields. The opening scene is the most apparent. Since digital cameras do have something similar to grain called digital noise, it's possible that Warner did their patented DNR work on yet another new release. I'm wondering if someone can confirm or deny this.



Is this the UK Warner release or the new Paramount release shipping now on some sites ?


I ask because i'd like to buy this one but obviously want the best version.


----------



## esl88

I did some reading up on the release. Apparently the international version (which I have) was released by Warner while the US version was released by Paramount. I have not seen the US version yet, so I can not say if it is better.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *esl88* /forum/post/15596315
> 
> 
> Zodiac looks like it has gone through some DNR. I know this film was shot digitally on the viper cam, but darker scenes have some pretty clear signs, like frozen grain fields. The opening scene is the most apparent. Since digital cameras do have something similar to grain called digital noise, it's possible that Warner did their patented DNR work on yet another new release. I'm wondering if someone can confirm or deny this.



Zodiac was denoised by Lowry Digital for Fincher. No Warner issue. Director desired and approved. It is what it is.


----------



## esl88

That's sort of weird. Anyway, if it's what Fincher wanted I guess I can't really complain. I just wish Lowry did a better job; the frozen grain fields are a bit distracting.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/15613779
> 
> 
> Zodiac was denoised by Lowry Digital for Fincher. No Warner issue. Director desired and approved. It is what it is.



This being the case couldn't an argument be made that Crank and Casino Royale are what they are since in the case of Crank the image was sharpened with the directors approval and in the case of Casino Royale it underwent grain reduction with the approval and supervision of the director.


If Zodiac has frozen grain backgrounds it should surely be on the list no matter if it's director approved or not since other films like the above i mentioned were also director approved.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15631266
> 
> 
> This being the case couldn't an argument be made that Crank and Casino Royale are what they are since in the case of Crank the image was sharpened with the directors approval and in the case of Casino Royale it underwent grain reduction with the approval and supervision of the director.
> 
> If Zodiac has frozen grain backgrounds it should surely be on the list no matter if it's director approved or not since other films like the above i mentioned were also director approved.



Aproved or not is not relevant for the list (although we mention it if we know). Relevant is the extent of the problem(s). As always if there are stills and/or time codes we can consider an entry.


----------



## stumlad

Planet of the apes series. All of them seem to have ringing (at least according to my eyes), and an insider says that it has undergone processing to de-grain.


Also -- for someone who has The Fall, can you check for ringing. I felt I saw it every time there was a sky background (in the "story" world) with someone wearing a hat, and thought it was distracting. (Edit: I saw some screen caps and it didnt appear to have any).


----------



## eric.exe

Anyone know why so many many Paramount titles have vertical lines running down across the image? I really don't see this from any other studio. Here are some examples:


Zodiac US Blu-ray (HD DVD has the same lines)
  


Old School Blu-ray (HD DVD has the same lines)
  


Patriot Games Blu-ray (HD DVD has the same lines)
  


Forrest Gump HBO
  


Apocalypse Now Redux Cinemax
  


The Dead Zone HDNet
  


Catch Me If You Can TNT


----------



## Kajaah117

Well I just watched Zodiac and I didn't notice anything like that anywhere. Where are those captures from?


----------



## lgans316

eric,


I have seen a thin vertical line that flashed for a moment in my BD copy of There Will Be Blood.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post14577342


----------



## Blacklac

I can see the lines, but once I opened the photos and made them full res the lines are not there. I can't remember ever watching a Bluray and seeing lines like that. (Same 50" display I watch movies on)


----------



## Kram Sacul

Doesn't *Hot Rod* have the same issue?


That transfer of Forrest Gump is so old. If Paramount puts that on Blu-ray there'll be Gangs of New York style riots.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kajaah117* /forum/post/15714332
> 
> 
> Well I just watched Zodiac and I didn't notice anything like that anywhere. Where are those captures from?



I certainly did notice them, and I made specific reference to them in my review here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=9810


----------



## rsbeck

IMO, Shawshank Redemption exhibits pretty obvious signs of excessive DNR.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15720859
> 
> 
> IMO, Shawshank Redemption exhibits pretty obvious signs of excessive DNR.



If you look at the blu-ray / dvd comparison for that, it looks like no additional DNR/processing was done for the blu-ray and that they simply used the same master as they did for the DVD. From what I've seen, a good amount of Warner titles are like this... the filtering done in the master. Though I have no "solid" evidence to back this theory up.


----------



## rsbeck

They must have used DNR on the DVD. Can you link me to those photos?


----------



## rsbeck

"Is that EE or are you just happy to see me?"



LOL.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15715758
> 
> 
> I certainly did notice them, and I made specific reference to them in my review here:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=9810



Is it better to buy the Warner edition then or do both exhibit this issue....I want to buy this movie at some point but want the best edition ?


----------



## Zaranyzerak

Should Patton still be included in the list? I thought it had been well established by now that the lack of grain was due to it being from a 65mm film source, and the "pasty" look of the actors was due to the makeup used, not DNR smearing. According to an article from dvdfile last April, Senior Vice President of Corporate & Marketing Communications Steve Feldstein for Fox confirmed that there was no grain removal applied to Patton.


And....it seems I can't post the link because I'm new here. Well, if you go to dvdfile and do a quick search for "Home Media Expo" the article pops right up. Just scroll down to the section on DNR and you can see what was said regarding the Patton BD release.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zaranyzerak* /forum/post/15765737
> 
> 
> Should Patton still be included in the list? I thought it had been well established by now that the lack of grain was due to it being from a 65mm film source, and the "pasty" look of the actors was due to the makeup used, not DNR smearing. According to an article from dvdfile last April, Senior Vice President of Corporate & Marketing Communications Steve Feldstein for Fox confirmed that there was no grain removal applied to Patton.
> 
> 
> And....it seems I can't post the link because I'm new here. Well, if you go to dvdfile and do a quick search for "Home Media Expo" the article pops right up. Just scroll down to the section on DNR and you can see what was said regarding the Patton BD release.



They also said Star Wars - The Phantom Menace was a perfect DVD transfer and had no edge enhancement....Studio's don't always tell the truth because then they would need to fix the issues.


----------



## eric.exe

Black Hawk Down - some mild EE during some shots:


----------



## Zaranyzerak




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15777498
> 
> 
> They also said Star Wars - The Phantom Menace was a perfect DVD transfer and had no edge enhancement....Studio's don't always tell the truth because then they would need to fix the issues.



Ah, good point. I still have yet to find a definitive answer on the subject, though. Seems to be mostly anecdotal, whereas reviews have given it top marks across the board. The screenshots look fine to me - the level of detail in the backgrounds seems to suggest no DNR, whereas the "waxy" faces don't seem to exhibit the same issues as other films that have that appearance due to DNR. I'm inclined to believe the makeup theory, and the lack of grain simply being due to the higher resolution film source.


Ditto Event Horizon - I was able to find ONE screenshot showing slight vertical stretching (yet no actual picture info lost, very strange), yet little to no definitive answer as to what is supposedly wrong with it. There was a clear (if slight) difference, yes, but does anyone know for certain if the Blu version isn't the way it was meant to be seen and the DVD perhaps had incorrect framing? And once again, reviews have given it top marks.


I'm really on the fence on both of these...


----------



## MSmith83




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zaranyzerak* /forum/post/15782194
> 
> 
> Ah, good point. I still have yet to find a definitive answer on the subject, though. Seems to be mostly anecdotal, whereas reviews have given it top marks across the board. The screenshots look fine to me - the level of detail in the backgrounds seems to suggest no DNR, whereas the "waxy" faces don't seem to exhibit the same issues as other films that have that appearance due to DNR. I'm inclined to believe the makeup theory, and the lack of grain simply being due to the higher resolution film source.



The Internet is an odd place with faceless people posting, but in another forum, a person claiming to have been contracted to work on the _Patton_ and _The Longest Day_ BDs publicly expressed his dislike towards film grain. He claimed to have worked on them within a tight schedule, and admitted that the process involved significant de-graining on both titles (not necessarily his own doing). He then hurled some insults toward Robert Harris. You can find this info in the _Patton_ thread in the Blu-ray software section.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zaranyzerak* /forum/post/15765737
> 
> 
> Should Patton still be included in the list? I thought it had been well established by now that the lack of grain was due to it being from a 65mm film source, and the "pasty" look of the actors was due to the makeup used, not DNR smearing. According to an article from dvdfile last April, Senior Vice President of Corporate & Marketing Communications Steve Feldstein for Fox confirmed that there was no grain removal applied to Patton.
> 
> 
> And....it seems I can't post the link because I'm new here. Well, if you go to dvdfile and do a quick search for "Home Media Expo" the article pops right up. Just scroll down to the section on DNR and you can see what was said regarding the Patton BD release.



Odd first post.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zaranyzerak* /forum/post/15765737
> 
> 
> Should Patton still be included in the list? I thought it had been well established by now that the lack of grain was due to it being from a 65mm film source, and the "pasty" look of the actors was due to the makeup used, not DNR smearing.



No. That's nonsense not rooted in reality. Patton is a DNRed wreck of a transfer.


----------



## mhafner

Added "History of Violence". DNRed.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eric.exe* /forum/post/15782158
> 
> 
> Black Hawk Down - some mild EE during some shots:




That type of ringing is very common in such circumstances. EE is not the only explanation for it. I don't think one can conclude EE from this evidence.


----------



## Kram Sacul

EE/Ringing/halos. Some of it looks photographic in nature but the white lines are definitely not.


----------



## rsbeck

How are you coming to that conclusion?


----------



## Kram Sacul

Because helicopters don't normally have white halos around them.


----------



## lgans316

Title: *Band of Brothers*

Studio: HBO / Warner Brothers / DreamWorks

Disc: BD

Problem: Inconspicuous DNR

Time Codes: Parts of the feature

Comments: DNR similar to Walk the Line / Disturbia / MPEG-2 version of The Descent.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zaranyzerak* /forum/post/15782194
> 
> 
> Ah, good point. I still have yet to find a definitive answer on the subject, though. Seems to be mostly anecdotal, whereas reviews have given it top marks across the board. The screenshots look fine to me - the level of detail in the backgrounds seems to suggest no DNR, whereas the "waxy" faces don't seem to exhibit the same issues as other films that have that appearance due to DNR. I'm inclined to believe the makeup theory, and the lack of grain simply being due to the higher resolution film source.
> 
> 
> Ditto Event Horizon - I was able to find ONE screenshot showing slight vertical stretching (yet no actual picture info lost, very strange), yet little to no definitive answer as to what is supposedly wrong with it. There was a clear (if slight) difference, yes, but does anyone know for certain if the Blu version isn't the way it was meant to be seen and the DVD perhaps had incorrect framing? And once again, reviews have given it top marks.
> 
> 
> I'm really on the fence on both of these...



It is not anecdotal evidence on Patton. Multiple studio insiders with no agenda who would know have admitted a technician inappropriately degrained the Patton transfer. Event Horizon looks great for what it is and I would not expect a better looking Blu-ray of it in the next decade.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15818137
> 
> 
> It is not anecdotal evidence on Patton. Multiple studio insiders with no agenda who would know have admitted a technician inappropriately degrained the Patton transfer. Event Horizon looks great for what it is and I would not expect a better looking Blu-ray of it in the next decade.



I agree....on both counts.


----------



## eric.exe

Kinda funny. Parts of the theatrical version is DNR'd, none of the Unrated DC version is but it has EE. My guess is they created a new transfer for the 2006 Unrated DVD release, which they used for this BD. Then they used the alternate takes with less violence from the previous transfer for the theatrical version.


Theatrical ---------------- Unrated


----------



## Thunderbolt8

Ip Man brings DNR to a whole new level









http://achumpatoxford.com/u/files/21...37e2a7fd98.png


----------



## esl88

I'm pretty sure that _Office Space_ has been DNRd. The image has a waxy appearance throughout with almost no grain. Though it doesn't look as bad as, say, _Gangs of New York_, it isn't film-like and has fairly minimal detail.


Time code: whole movie


URLs:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...536&position=1 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...536&position=3 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...536&position=4


----------



## Kram Sacul

There's filtering but IMO the lack of really fine detail is more attributable to the age and quality of the transfer.


----------



## lgans316

Mhafner,

*Band of Brothers*: Please put a note that Grain structure is intact in *Part-5 - Why we fight*.


----------



## mhafner

Added 3 discs with a new kind of problem: 24.00 fps mastering. This can cause problems with equipment that can only handle 23.976 (the standard) correctly (causes dropped frames or worse).

Butterfly on a Wheel

Jodhaa Akbar

Sivaji


----------



## msgohan

There are other 24fps discs listed in the specs thread if you wanted to list those as well.


----------



## jdryyz

Just got the HD-DVD today in a bargain bin. Too bad on the EE though. Sure wish this crap would stop already.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Captainjoe* /forum/post/12314306
> 
> 
> The 40-Year-Old Virgin looks so bad! I noticed this right away when I watched the disc. This is a newer film too. Universal and some other studios need to get their **** together.


----------



## venkatesh_m

Question: On Kill Bill Vol 2, the chapter about training with Pai Mei, there seems to be a fluctuation of brightness in a couple of seconds/minute when Pai Mei and B are in a scene. Is it print damage? Or some implementation of DNR/EE gone wrong.


Edit: If this is not related to this topic, mods pls help to delete this. I am unaware if this has anything to do with DNR/EE implementation, thats why I put in the question here?


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eric.exe* /forum/post/15710275
> 
> 
> Anyone know why so many many Paramount titles have vertical lines running down across the image? I really don't see this from any other studio. Here are some examples:
> 
> 
> Zodiac US Blu-ray (HD DVD had the same lines)



I watched Zodiac yesterday and when the credits came up at the beginning of the film i noticed the lines you are talking about....Early on as Jake is about to enter a bar i noticed the lines on a building behind him and at various times in the newspaper room. They seemed to be during the first half of the movie as i don't recall seeing them much during the second half or maybe i just got used to them and so didn't notice them as much.


I too think i saw this on another movie but can't recall which one.


Oh and for anyone who is interested in Zodiac i recommend this site for great info.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/s...c/river_1.html 


The film wasn't as good as i thought it might be....Not bad but not great.


----------



## mhafner

"Event Horizon" has EE, rather thick at times.


----------



## Xylon

*mhafner*, your PM is full.


----------



## rsbeck

I have the UK import of Zodiac. I found fewer problems with it than people have been reporting with the US release. Only problem I noted was some video noise in a brief scene where Rufalo is woken from sleep by a phone call and his bedroom is half-lit.


That's a great site -- thanks for the link.


Side note -- I really enjoyed Zodiac. Having grown up in the Bay Area and having read a couple of books including Graysmith's, I was curious whether they would find a fresh angle into the story. I felt that they did. I find myself going back to Zodiac for repeat viewings.


----------



## eric.exe

Added Catch Me If You Can to Paramount/Dreamworks movies with vertical lines running down across the image here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=662


----------



## lgans316

I am pretty confident that Chronicles of Riddick will soon be added to the DNR list.


----------



## mhafner

Added "Suspiria".


----------



## mhafner

Added "Final Destination".


----------



## Kram Sacul

If Final Destination on BD is the same master seen on HDTV then there's also some EE in spots.


----------



## mhafner

Added T2 Skynet Edition, The Reader and Star Trek 1-6.


----------



## lgans316

Looks like the Skynet edition looks waxy, polished and ultra clean like the BLUE Sky above our heads. Lionsgate have reached the Sky w.r to T2 and they are yet to figure out how to fly properly.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16441595
> 
> 
> Looks like the Skynet edition looks waxy, polished and ultra clean like the BLUE Sky above our heads. Lionsgate have reached the Sky w.r to T2 and they are yet to figure out how to fly properly.



Since a new transfer is coming later and there is a good version of the old it's not a big deal. The Star Trek screw up is far more annoying.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/16443969
> 
> 
> Since a new transfer is coming later and there is a good version of the old it's not a big deal. The Star Trek screw up is far more annoying.



But the Motion Picture Trilogy caps looks quite good which is a relief.


Btw, how is the PQ on the new Ayngaran release Billa?


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16447329
> 
> 
> But the Motion Picture Trilogy caps looks quite good which is a relief.
> 
> Btw, how is the PQ on the new Ayngaran release Billa?



Same as on the DI. DNRed to some extent. Part of the DI.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/16450658
> 
> 
> Same as on the DI. DNRed to some extent. Part of the DI.



That's fine. Please clarify on the below w.r to the Ayngaran BLUs:


1. The audio on the back cover says LPCM 6.4 Mbps.







Is it 6.9 Mbps?

2. Is the frame rate 24fps or 23.976fps?


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16450738
> 
> 
> That's fine. Please clarify on the below w.r to the Ayngaran BLUs:
> 
> 
> 1. The audio on the back cover says LPCM 6.4 Mbps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it 6.9 Mbps?
> 
> 2. Is the frame rate 24fps or 23.976fps?



I don't have this disc. What I know is from
http://www.zulm.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10862


----------



## patrick99

Is there any chance of moving this thread to the Blu-ray software forum?


----------



## eric.exe

Some jaggies on STVI since it was derived from a 1080i60 master:

 


Comment from Torsten Kaiser: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...postcount=5512


----------



## mhafner

Added "ll Decameron".


----------



## lgans316

Title: Billa (2007)

Studio: Ayngaran

Disc: BD

Problem: Jaggies / Aliasing, Halos, 24fps

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments:


(1) Probably an incorrect filtering job from the DI causing aliasing type artifacts and moire patterns.


(2) Noticeable halos at high contrast outlines.


(3) Mastered in 24fps instead of the standard 23.976fps.


BD looks to be very accurate or even better than its theatrical presentation.


Before updating the OP, please verify with Shahran at zulm.net. Otherwise, the image looks flawless. No DNR. Everything looks razor sharp including facial details.


URLs:

*Sivaji*- There is some DNR but it's not that bad and not even remotely close to any wax jobs.


----------



## msgohan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15292629
> 
> 
> Title: Disturbia
> 
> Studio: DreamWorks
> 
> Disc: BD (U.S.A)
> 
> Problem: DNR
> 
> Time Codes: Most parts of the movie
> 
> Comments: Grain removal up to a point where texture and facial close-up details are on the verge of becoming soft and waxy (similar to MPEG-2 version of The Descent.)
> 
> 
> Member msgohan will be able to provide screenshots.



I finally got around to this.


As we know, the HD DVD used a separate lower bitrate AVC encode compared to the 32Mbps Blu-ray. The HD DVD has a much higher DNR level, including motion trails all over the place. It's tough to compare the deleted scenes to the movie thanks to the brightness and color differences, but I do think the Blu-ray is somewhat grain-reduced as well. Not the motion-trail kind, thankfully.


The first set of pics is actually Blu-ray vs HD DVD vs Blu-ray deleted scene vs HD DVD deleted scene, because they encoded the extras twice as well... The Blu-ray appears grainier in both cases.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show)


































*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show)

















*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show)


----------



## msgohan

I've posted pics of the DNR'd UK HD DVD of Pan's Labyrinth vs DNR-free Blu-ray if you want to add the link to the OP: http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/10547


----------



## John J. Puccio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msgohan* /forum/post/16917270
> 
> 
> I've posted pics of the DNR'd UK HD DVD of Pan's Labyrinth vs DNR-free Blu-ray if you want to add the link to the OP: http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/10547



Is this a UK Blu-ray that's not DNR filtered or a U.S. release?


----------



## msgohan

It's just the 2007 UK release by Optimum Home Entertainment.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Miss March looks filtered.


IMDB lists it as being filmed on 35MM, but my initial thought was that it was done entirely in digital. The look reminded me of Splinter, very flat and bland. That was shot digitally.


Lots of flickering and aliasing on roofs and hair in Miss March. Very little facial detail. Didn't notice any smearing, but the lack of grain and facial detail seems to be a giveaway, unless IMDB has its tech specs wrong (always a possibility). A lot of noise in the movie too.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Should have noted it in my previous post, but just noticed it was not on the list. Battle of Britain has edge enhancement throughout, at its worse when looking up at planes in the sky (multiple times in the film). The film grain literally stops dead and a bright line circles the planes. Decent transfer otherwise.


----------



## mhafner

DNR done right:
http://www.arri.de/fileadmin/media/a...ball_split.mov


----------



## esl88

_The Good the Bad and the Ugly_ has been reputedly DNRd by MGM. Most Blu-ray "reviewers" seem pleased with the transfer, but those with a discerning eye have expressed much disappointment.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...355&position=3 (ugh!)
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...355&position=4 
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...355&position=7 
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...355&position=1 


Additionally, _Fargo_ has some pretty thick EE throughout. The snow-covered setting brings out ugly haloes durring day exteriors, and what should be filmic grain looks more like a swarm of intrusive noise. Needless to say, the final results are not film-like.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...352&position=7 (check out the the officer to the left)
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...352&position=2 
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...352&position=5 


2 Strikes for MGM.


----------



## esl88

Also, please put _Office Space_ up there. I've seen that disk and can say without any doubt in my mind that it's been DNRd. At some points small moles (apparently mistaken for dirt/grain) disappear momentarily.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *esl88* /forum/post/17036244
> 
> 
> Also, please put _Office Space_ up there. I've seen that disk and can say without any doubt in my mind that it's been DNRd. At some points small moles (apparently mistaken for dirt/grain) disappear momentarily.



I would definitely agree with that. Very flat and waxy faces with almost no grain to speak of.


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/16992454
> 
> 
> DNR done right:
> http://www.arri.de/fileadmin/media/a...ball_split.mov



Would've been better if some grain was left in. For me the completely smooth look is just as distracting as heavy grain.

This clip looks okay to me although her hair has that painted look from the processing.


----------



## msgohan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kram Sacul* /forum/post/17038202
> 
> 
> Would've been better if some grain was left in. For me the completely smooth look is just as distracting as heavy grain.
> 
> This clip looks okay to me although her hair has that painted look from the processing.



Agreed. Complete lack of grain/noise really pops out as unnatural for film and even digital video IMO.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msgohan* /forum/post/17039573
> 
> 
> Agreed. Complete lack of grain/noise really pops out as unnatural for film and even digital video IMO.



There is nothing unnatural about the lack of noise/grain per se. The processing artifacts are unnatural. If there are none it's just a look like grainy is a look.

If they remove grain it should be done like here. With no nasty side effects. How much they remove the film makers have to decide.

I have seen this stuff in 4K projection and it's damn good

Added "Gladiator". That is a huge screw up...


----------



## BIG ED




> Quote:
> Last edited by mhafner; 08-28-09 at 01:51 AM..



Looking forward for the next update too this extremely helpful/enlightening thread.

BIG thanks, again!


----------



## Brian81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brian81* /forum/post/14129797
> 
> 
> Same here, the BD just looks brightened based on the screencaps. If anything, the stills on that page make the BD look better IMO. It's not a big difference like the stills comparison of Total Recall. I went ahead and ordered Total Recall, even if it has the pitch issue. Perhaps it won't bother me too much. Either way, I already own the BD and I'll keep both. I also ordered Basic Instinct. The trailers on the Studio Canal HD DVDs have footage from this and it has grain. So if the BD (which I plan to order also) does have details DNRed out, I'll be keeping both once again. But those caps for First Blood don't make me want to go out and order the HD DVD. They look the same but with different brightness. And Rambo II & III are said to be fine in the PQ department according to Igans, I think.



I take this back. I watched the pitch problem HD DVD and followed it up by throwing in the BD afterwards. The Lionsgate BD is indeed waxy looking compared to the HD DVD. I might need to triple dip after reading that the BD equivalent of the HD DVD has the audio fixed.


----------



## FendersRule

I'd like to disagree with "A Nightmare on Elm Street". Sure, there is minor DNR in some scenes, but not "throughout entire movie". The image is fantastic to say the least, and the audio is enticing. I would rate this transfer no less than a 4.5/5 for both audio and video, with the audio slightly given the lead.


I have the newest DVD release of this movie, and it looks fuggin disgusting. Blurriness, scratches everywhere, and the audio isn't clean at all. The Canadian Blu-ray release of this movie is phenomenal to say the least, and sitting around on your computers looking at comparison images is not going to lend you to an accurate portrayal. Anyone who owns this movie will vouch that this movie isn't "FULL OF DNR". The picture is absolutely attractive, especially the closeups of Johnny Depp or Tina.


Out of my collection of 100 HD-DVDs and Blu-rays, this is the only movie that I would hold on the tightest to. It's a rare gem, and it shouldn't be listed as is in the list.


----------



## eric.exe

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

Released by Starz / Anchor Bay

Problem: aliasing/color fringing

Screenshots:


----------



## FendersRule

I'm not so sure that I agree that The Fog is an "up-convert". I was able to compare the DVD and the Blu-ray, and the Blu-ray did offer a much better picture (mainly in the way of colors), but it didn't have any of the compression issues that the DVD had, plus things were a bit sharper.


However, the Fog does have a good amount of EE from what I saw. But an "Up-convert"? I'm going to need evidence of this, because from my comparison, The Fog did resemble some decent 1080p prints.


----------



## kevinsert

this thread needs serious update


----------



## mhafner

Added LOTR and "Out of Africa" and Goats.


----------



## mhafner

Added Spartacus BD and Days of Heaven.


----------



## BIG ED

BIG thanks for the updates!

Could you all so update titles too show that they have been re-released or now are on blu?


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BIG ED* /forum/post/18655229
> 
> 
> BIG thanks for the updates!
> 
> Could you all so update titles too show that they have been re-released or now are on blu?



If you have updates post them here please.


----------



## mhafner

Added "Flash Gordon"


----------



## mhafner

Added "Predator Remaster".


----------



## BIG ED




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/18671661
> 
> 
> If you have updates post them here please.



I try desperately NOT too buy any DNR/EE'd titles.

So, I'm would not have the resources too do so.

Super glad you (and others) do!


I was thinking more of updating the *releases* (& *re*-releases). So, I'll attempt that:

"Army of Darkness" has been released on BD.

"The Big Lebowski" has been released on BD.

"Caddyshack" has been released on BD.

"Casino Royale" has been re-released on BD (same transfer).

"The Deer Hunter" has been released on BD.

"Dirty Dancing" has been re-released on BD.

"Elisabeth" has been released on BD.

"Escape from New York" has been released on BD in the US (R1).

"Fantastic Four" has been released on BD in the US (R1).

"Half Baked" will be released on Blu in July '10.

"Hot Rod" has been released on BD.

"The Matrix" has been released on BD.

"Meet the Parents" has been released on BD.

"Mr. & Mrs. Smith" has been released as an import on BD.

"Stargate" has been re-released on BD.

"Traffic" has been released on BD.

"U-571" has been released on BD.

"Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" has been released on BD.


(of coarse I may have missed some & I apologies in advance for any errors)


----------



## boulder_bum

Sorry to troll, but I just found out about this whole DNR thing and... I wish EVERY old movie used it! Man do I love the way the picture pops in movies like "Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition" (which I just got done watching). Personally, I don't like grain in old movies and usually have a ho-hum experience with old transfers because of it.


Now that I know technology can correct the issues, I'm excited!


Ironically, some of the movies listed are the ones with the picture I already find most impressive ("Chronicles of Narnia", "Dark City", "The Dark Knight", etc.). I actually happened upon this thread trying to Google to figure out which movies used the technique so I can target future purchases and buy more of them!










I know my preference makes me totally unhip/retarded, but I like the effect.


Anyway, thanks for maintaining this list. I appreciate it in a way you didn't anticipate.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boulder_bum* /forum/post/19119523
> 
> 
> Sorry to troll, but I just found out about this whole DNR thing and... I wish EVERY old movie used it! Man do I love the way the picture pops in movies like "Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition" (which I just got done watching). Personally, I don't like grain in old movies and usually have a ho-hum experience with old transfers because of it.
> 
> 
> Now that I know technology can correct the issues, I'm excited!
> 
> 
> Ironically, some of the movies listed are the ones with the picture I already find most impressive ("Chronicles of Narnia", "Dark City", "The Dark Knight", etc.). I actually happened upon this thread trying to Google to figure out which movies used the technique so I can target future purchases and buy more of them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know my preference makes me totally unhip/retarded, but I like the effect.
> 
> 
> Anyway, thanks for maintaining this list. I appreciate it in a way you didn't anticipate.




not a flame-retort...


question: how big is your screen and how far back from it do you sit? Specifically how many "screen widths away" from the image do you sit?


Can you describe your display (ie, 720p versus 1080p, Plasma or DLP projection etc.).


I ask these questions because DNR and EE often only become bothersome artifacts when viewers are replicating "cinema" viewing angles that approximate a 30 degree experience (as films, and blu-ray are meant to be viewed I should add).


Folks viewing images from more than 1.75 screen widths would be sitting too far to see all of the real detail in a 1080p image and would probably experience EE as "pop", which is exactly why many tools were developed around adding it given the legacy of lower resolution/smaller screens that were intended to be viewed from relatively farther away (narrower viewing angles).


BTW, one thing you should know (if your post is serious) is that you can always simply add EE/ringing on the display side by turning up the sharpness on your display. But you can't get rid of hte artifact once it's burned into the image on the blu-ray. For this reason, it makes sense to master content with transparency to the source, and then let consumers dial in their displays as they personally prefer as it leaves all options on the table for all consumers.


----------



## boulder_bum




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/19120033
> 
> 
> question: how big is your screen and how far back from it do you sit? Specifically how many "screen widths away" from the image do you sit?
> 
> 
> Can you describe your display (ie, 720p versus 1080p, Plasma or DLP projection etc.).



I have a 55" UN55B8500. Samsung's local-dimming LED backlit model from last year, which CNET claims is surpassed only by the legendary Pioneer Kuro for picture quality.


I sit about 15' away. Certainly more than 1.75 TV lengths.


I definitely _am_ serious that I love the DNR/EE processing I've seen so far (in "Dark Knight", "Chronicles of Narnia", "Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition", etc.). In fact, they're the movies whose image I like the most!


Conversely, I hate grain and feel it detracted from the image quality of films like "300", which apparently added grain to the otherwise pristine digital imagery.


Honestly, I know a lot of people online are saying I'm supposed to hate DNR/EE but I just don't! I love it!


I'm hearing more rumors that "Aliens" got a similar treatment and it gets me excited to see it.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boulder_bum* /forum/post/19122172
> 
> 
> I have a 55" UN55B8500. Samsung's local-dimming LED backlit model from last year, which CNET claims is surpassed only by the legendary Pioneer Kuro for picture quality.
> 
> 
> I sit about 15' away. Certainly more than 1.75 TV lengths.
> 
> 
> I definitely _am_ serious that I love the DNR/EE processing I've seen so far (in "Dark Knight", "Chronicles of Narnia", "Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition", etc.). In fact, they're the movies whose image I like the most!
> 
> 
> Conversely, I hate grain and feel it detracted from the image quality of films like "300", which apparently added grain to the otherwise pristine digital imagery.
> 
> 
> Honestly, I know a lot of people online are saying I'm supposed to hate DNR/EE but I just don't! I love it!
> 
> 
> I'm hearing more rumors that "Aliens" got a similar treatment and it gets me excited to see it.




Looks like we have the answer as to why you don't mind (or why you feel positive about) EE: you're sitting much farther away from your screen than the resolving power of 1080p, and the viewing angle of film would prescribe. That's not a bad thing... folks can sit whereever they want to watch any screen size they choose, but it does mean that for you EE would look sharper, whereas for anyone viewing with a viewing angle to replicate cinema-wide images with fullly visible 1080p resolution, such ringing would appear as an artifact. The quality of your set is not in question: it's the fact that you're sitting too far away to see all of the detail in the image that's the issue as to why EE doesn't look disagreeable to you.


----------



## msgohan

Your TV includes a Digital Noise Reduction feature so you should be able to make any Blu-ray look like Predator: UHE. It's under the Picture Settings menu, try it out.


----------



## boulder_bum

Thanks guys.


For what it's worth, I measured it out and my viewing distance is more like 11', but still outside the 1.75x range. I definitely like the effect from where I sit, though! I may have to try scooting closer one of these days to see if my opinion changes.


Also, I checked out the "Digital NR" feature and it looks like it's set to "Auto" right now. Thanks for the heads up about the option! I'll have to pop in a few of my grainier movies to see what they're like when I crank the setting up to "high".


----------



## maxleung




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boulder_bum* /forum/post/19119523
> 
> 
> Sorry to troll, but I just found out about this whole DNR thing and... I wish EVERY old movie used it! Man do I love the way the picture pops in movies like "Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition" (which I just got done watching). Personally, I don't like grain in old movies and usually have a ho-hum experience with old transfers because of it.
> 
> 
> Now that I know technology can correct the issues, I'm excited!



Did you know that most Blu-ray players and TVs have a DNR option? You should look into that - then you can watch all the movies in the damaged way you like!


----------



## boulder_bum

As an update (not that anyone cares), I did try out the "Digital NR" feature of my set and it didn't make a noticeable difference in a grainy film like "Karate Kid". It's certainly not a good solution to replicate the picture pop I like.


I notice more and more, however, that there are Blu Rays (and movies in general) that have borders around foreground objects (usually people) against a fast moving background. The borders look like they contain content from a frame or two earlier.


Is that an artifact of edge enhancement in some films or some other factor coming into play? I really hate it. It brings me out of the experience of the movie as quickly as grain does.


----------



## Icaro

I would add *Saturday Night Fever* (1977)

although so light, unfortunately was applied EE and DNR



otherwise was a perfect transfer.


----------



## notanarborist

boulder_bum, did you also try cranking up the noise reduction on your player(if it has it and it wasn't already defaulted to on?). Also, you may want to try turning up the sharpness on both the tv and bd player.


And on topic, I am sadened that so many good films with hd potential have been handled so carelessly. On one hand you have grainy films turned to plastic, and the opposite hand, an animation like Surf's Up where heavy grain was purposefully added( I think it looks great and can't believe it was bundled with the Water Horse movie for 12 bucks at BB).


----------



## boulder_bum

Quote:

Originally Posted by *notanarborist* 
boulder_bum, did you also try cranking up the noise reduction on your player(if it has it and it wasn't already defaulted to on?). Also, you may want to try turning up the sharpness on both the tv and bd player.
Thanks, notanarborist.


I didn't try tweaking the settings of my Blu Ray player(s). I kind of gave up on that avenue because I don't think real-time hardware processing gives the same effect/pop as production-time DNR.


I did, however, try increasing sharpness to the max at one point, but I found that it produced an unpleasant moire effect on the picture in several Blu Rays, so I ended up turning it all the way off.


On a side note, I figured out the "borders" mentioned in my last post were an artifact of 240Hz processing.


240Hz processing has me a bit torn. I like films to look _good_, not historic, so I actually prefer elimination of grain and filling in frames of scenes that would otherwise be choppy. I notice choppiness in panning scenes with 240Hz processing off, which I don't like, but I notice ringing when 240Hz processing is too high, and I also don't like that! I've yet to find the perfect balance in this regard (which will be a custom setting somewhere between "Standard" and "Clear" on my TV), but at least I was able to figure out what was causing the issue.


----------



## msgohan

One for the list. The UK's Special Edition 1080i50 release of Planet Earth that fixes the banding problems adds a new one: harsh blooming on some episodes.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/united-king...ml#post4173930 


There are more shots a few posts before that comparing new vs old where the snows is clipped to oblivion.


----------



## BIG ED

This thread should be more popular than "Star Wreak"!


Butt no...


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msgohan* /forum/post/19694837
> 
> 
> One for the list. The UK's Special Edition 1080i50 release of Planet Earth that fixes the banding problems adds a new one: harsh blooming on some episodes.
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/united-king...ml#post4173930
> 
> 
> There are more shots a few posts before that comparing new vs old where the snows is clipped to oblivion.



That has been corrected. You can get replacement discs apparently.


----------



## msgohan

Apparently there is a release of *3:10 to Yuma* in Japan without the jaggies or color problems!


----------



## jd213

Hmm, interesting. I have the US disc but never watched it on my main setup. It looks like the JP disc is OOP but is still available for rental, I'll check it out sometime.


----------



## jd213

Haven't rented it yet but there's a cheaper re-release coming out in Japan soon: http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B00GCPEYCC


----------

