|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 04/26/07 12:47
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:02:28 -0700, SuperM wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:07:16 -0400, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>
>>Grain is an element of film, and sometimes a very desired element that
>>cinematographers and directors may aspire to achieve. Before they try and
>>reduce the grain on a film, the technicians should check to find out
>>exactly how much grain the director intended the film to have.
>
> I didn't say they should attempt to reduce it. I SAID that they
> should try to find the best print they can, and the current releases
> show that the original telecine process was pretty quick and dirty.
>
> The "graininess" of the best print one can find IS what the director
> intended. I said nothing that goes against any such intentions.
You're making the assumptions though that the current transfer *wasn't*
from the best available print, and that the level of grain *isn't* what the
director intended. Just because the film has a higher level of grain tahn
you'd like doesn't mean that the transfer was "quick and dirty," or that
it's not what the director intended the film to look like.
From
http://www.avrev.com/hddvd/revs/0606/full_metal_jacket.shtml
“Full Metal Jacket” is a welcome but odd choice for Warner’s first
wave of HD DVD releases. It’s a lightly grainy film and was originally
released in Kubrick’s preferred mono soundtrack. The disc is a visually
perfect rendition of the film and the HD encoding captured the soft
grain of the photography and its various scenes of low light and smoke
without digital artifacts or macro-blocking.
Unfortunately, average consumers will doubtless see little difference
between this release and the previous DVD, and the grain will leave a
disappointing impression to those unfamiliar with slower, grainier
film stocks.
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|