I love film grain but I remember having a weird issue with the final season of Mad Men on Blu Ray where it was just extremely bad, as if it was broken in some way. Frick seeing original post, but it's hard to tell if this guy had same issue I did from that still image.
when your brain focuses on it, it tends to be worse. I was rewatching TWD on blu ray and I thought it was all fricked up, then the next day when I wasnt thinking about it, it was fine.
it's there for a reason without the grain/24 fps movies look weird, you can say we were conditioned to percieve it that way, but still to change that you will need to wait for generations to die off
because the films weren't shot that way and it is the computer filling in the blanks. you can't just magically pull frames out of thin air, the computer generates what would best fit
>you can say we were conditioned to percieve it that way
The 24fps standard was literally just there to save money.
You'd probably need just a few years of 48fps movies to get used to a better standard.
Same for film grain.
>looking better is not an "actual benefit" for a visual medium
I always think I've seen the most braindead take on Cinemaphile, but it is always surpassed by a new level of moronation.
The arms on the left look like plastic, unironically looks like shit. These low effort "4K" upscales from a source smaller than 4K are mostly dogshit anyway, especially for streaming garbage.
Friendly reminder you haven’t actually watched a “film” in fifteen years or longer. All movies are digital transfers now no matter what they were shot on or where you watched them
>No Time to Die >Negative format: 35mm, 65mm
No wonder it looked so fricking good and the performances didn't feel half assed. When you shoot digital not only does it look worse but you can do tons more takes because you just swap a hard drive and all that's holding you back is time schedules. There's no such thing as wasting a shot.
Also pro tip: grain doesn't look as good on OLED lmao so you morons who bought OLED fell for the scam. Grain looks great on an LCD/LED TV and especially on a projector.
>Album was recorded on analog >Analog is transferred to analog disc >Analog disc is played on turntable
It's that simple.
Also 4k UHD looks great if
1. It's a proper transfer from 35mm or 70mm film
2. Doesnt use something artificial like HDR
3. Is viewed on a huge screen, or better yet a 4k projector
all analog transfers are lossy, if your album is from the 90s or later it was recorded on digital
I can appreciate a nice vinyl but they don't give better sound and unless you live in a clean room or have a laser turntable you WILL get hiss and pops eventually
>2. Doesnt use something artificial like HDR
HDR is no more "artificial" than SDR. Just means that the entire dynamic range captured by the film negative can be shown more naturally, instead of squeezing it to fit a smaller contrast range. So, in a way one could argue it's actually less artificial.
tbf there are qualities that can make vinyl records sound better, usually has little to do with the medium and more to do with the fact you can't compress the shit out of an LP, so drums etc can sound better. however that's not the reason most hipsters buy albums
>tbf there are qualities that can make vinyl records sound better
There can be good vinyls and bad cds but at the best of their best a CD is objectively a higher quality format. It's like bluray vs uhd. Transfers quality is significant but looking at the formats at face value there is no reason to prefer bd vs uhd aside file size.
Grain is where details hide. You remove the grain, you remove the details. I don't understand people who want to watch movies that are slick like those shitty predator blurays from a few years ago. Go watch a play or something if you don't want grain
that's not grain, it's noise. you typically get noise when shooting digital and cranking the ISO in low light shooting. Grain only applies to shooting film. Hope this helps.
lea seydoodoo sucks my massive 4" wiener
asian post
go make a new game Hideo
lmao link to original post?
https://www.reddit.com/r/bravia/comments/rz8azn/4k_blu_ray_background_video_noise_i_have_a_sony/
New TVs have a " reality creation" setting?
Sony brand TVs do. It just upscales it and applies both a denoise & sharpen filter.
>2 year old post
Explain yourself OP.
is that a fingerprint?
I love film grain but I remember having a weird issue with the final season of Mad Men on Blu Ray where it was just extremely bad, as if it was broken in some way. Frick seeing original post, but it's hard to tell if this guy had same issue I did from that still image.
when your brain focuses on it, it tends to be worse. I was rewatching TWD on blu ray and I thought it was all fricked up, then the next day when I wasnt thinking about it, it was fine.
Agreed, film grain won't let me see Lea Say-Doo-Doo's face
Just blur your eyes to make the frain blend into the background.
probably the tv
Film grain ia a meme like 24 fps.
This is why people who get it (like James Cameron) clean out that shit OUT.
What's with the shitty animations? Is it to keep the attention of zoom-zooms?
Fricking annoying and distracting garbage
weak
it's there for a reason without the grain/24 fps movies look weird, you can say we were conditioned to percieve it that way, but still to change that you will need to wait for generations to die off
because the films weren't shot that way and it is the computer filling in the blanks. you can't just magically pull frames out of thin air, the computer generates what would best fit
>you can say we were conditioned to percieve it that way
The 24fps standard was literally just there to save money.
You'd probably need just a few years of 48fps movies to get used to a better standard.
Same for film grain.
Cope. Just compare photos shot on celluloid to digital. The real Fotos look much more beautiful, warm, real, like memories. Digital was a mistake.
Practically every film technique is built around 24fps, 48fps would require relearning everything for no actual benefit
>looking better is not an "actual benefit" for a visual medium
I always think I've seen the most braindead take on Cinemaphile, but it is always surpassed by a new level of moronation.
What makes you think 48 fps would look better?
What makes 48 fps better?
stick to video games homosexual
soulless zoomer opinion, go watch digitally shot slop on your phone
It's not as uncanny as Predator but it still looks a bit unnatural.
It looks like everyone was airbrushed and any detail was smoothed out
The arms on the left look like plastic, unironically looks like shit. These low effort "4K" upscales from a source smaller than 4K are mostly dogshit anyway, especially for streaming garbage.
>still a month away from Ripley's glorious bush in 4K
that would be the first movie brainlet
don't call my friend brainlet
his name is roger
riddle me this mr big brain brett
i love female legs so much bros
>Hey Vasquez, you ever been mistaken for a wax statue before?
underrated
Never noticed Ripley's dong before.
exterminate zoomers
it is all wrong, shitty ai rework, not a real record
moron.
Digitally cleaning up natual camera captures is filthy mudpeople logic and no wonder cameron is pulp fantasy trash
Home theater gays deserve to suffer, the hubris and effort they put into this shit is so gay. I get surround sound but 4k blu ray seems like a meme
>my yify rips are just as good!
just poor people things
2-3gb rips are perfectly fine even on 4k tvs
Your film has no FILM GRAIN, it's not film, it's a flick, a child's toy, a videogame.
>watching and buying that fricking abomination of a movie on 4K
He should anhero.
I watch 700 mb pirated movies on VLC player because I"m not a turbo homosexual nerd
Friendly reminder you haven’t actually watched a “film” in fifteen years or longer. All movies are digital transfers now no matter what they were shot on or where you watched them
idiot
Use your big boy words little fella
nah
I watched 70mm Oppnehrimer 3 times, so no.
Well I hope you aren’t proud of that.
Lets move on to a game called film dub, its a game called uh, film dub
>No Time to Die
>Negative format: 35mm, 65mm
No wonder it looked so fricking good and the performances didn't feel half assed. When you shoot digital not only does it look worse but you can do tons more takes because you just swap a hard drive and all that's holding you back is time schedules. There's no such thing as wasting a shot.
Also pro tip: grain doesn't look as good on OLED lmao so you morons who bought OLED fell for the scam. Grain looks great on an LCD/LED TV and especially on a projector.
>Also pro tip: grain doesn't look as good on OLED lmao so you morons who bought OLED fell for the scam
>t. moronic amateur
>t. Probably has a fake OLED
Lmao
>t. unironically thinks a washed out picture on an LCD/LED is better
Lmao
Film grain is great, go back to video games
>why does this movie that was shot on film have film grain?
redditors ladies and gentlemen
Publishers who DNR deserve to be boiled in a bronze bull
LOL how are these dumb Black folk 4K blu ray buyers
They're the same people who buy vinyls because they unironically think they have magic qualities that are superior to cd.
>Album was recorded on analog
>Analog is transferred to analog disc
>Analog disc is played on turntable
It's that simple.
Also 4k UHD looks great if
1. It's a proper transfer from 35mm or 70mm film
2. Doesnt use something artificial like HDR
3. Is viewed on a huge screen, or better yet a 4k projector
all analog transfers are lossy, if your album is from the 90s or later it was recorded on digital
I can appreciate a nice vinyl but they don't give better sound and unless you live in a clean room or have a laser turntable you WILL get hiss and pops eventually
>2. Doesnt use something artificial like HDR
HDR is no more "artificial" than SDR. Just means that the entire dynamic range captured by the film negative can be shown more naturally, instead of squeezing it to fit a smaller contrast range. So, in a way one could argue it's actually less artificial.
tbf there are qualities that can make vinyl records sound better, usually has little to do with the medium and more to do with the fact you can't compress the shit out of an LP, so drums etc can sound better. however that's not the reason most hipsters buy albums
>tbf there are qualities that can make vinyl records sound better
There can be good vinyls and bad cds but at the best of their best a CD is objectively a higher quality format. It's like bluray vs uhd. Transfers quality is significant but looking at the formats at face value there is no reason to prefer bd vs uhd aside file size.
we're in total agreement
Grain is where details hide. You remove the grain, you remove the details. I don't understand people who want to watch movies that are slick like those shitty predator blurays from a few years ago. Go watch a play or something if you don't want grain
that's not grain, it's noise. you typically get noise when shooting digital and cranking the ISO in low light shooting. Grain only applies to shooting film. Hope this helps.
It was shot on film.
I can't even tell you how grateful I am that TVs come with filmmaker mode now, so I it's easy to take it off the settings for morons.