Is the DNR debate getting out of hand?

[Merrick97]

I have to say that Im starting to get tired of the DNR issue being brought up all the time.

When a new title comes out instead of asking about how the movie looks the first question is usually, Is this titled DNRed?

I agree that there are some cases when it can be a distraction if its overused,

but are people making too big a deal about DNR and have gotten to where they now pause every frame to see if an image is overly smooth?

What happened to just watching a movie and appreciating the fact that it looks better than dvd?

I just think its being overblown, but I do recognize some instances where it does cause a loss of detail.

What do you think? I want to see if we can have a REAL debate in the smackdown section.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Merrick97

When a new title comes out instead of asking about how the movie looks the first question is usually, Is this titled DNRed?

but are people making too big a deal about DNR and have gotten to where they now pause every frame to see if an image is overly smooth?

What happened to just watching a movie and appreciating the fact that it looks better than dvd?

I just think its being overblown, but I do recognize some instances where it does cause a loss of detail.

What do you think? .

The reason people are angry (like me) is because these films are being robbed of their detail and original presentation. Distorting the image by removing grain changes the feel and look of the film. Yes, they still look far better than DVD but I also know what it could look like if it wasn't DNR'd to hell. We as enthasists want the best sound and picture possible, and if we don't fight this it may become commonplace as becomes more mainstream because a lot of people want their pictures to look a certain way (crystal clear) regardless of how the film is actually supposed to look like.

Nowadays we have a lot of good options out there. Most if not all films are presented in their OAR and have their original language tracks. I still know a lot of people who want a full-screen picture in English only, regardless of the fact that the movie was in Mandarin and shot in 2.40:1. If you give an inch, they take a mile. I don't think Universal would be putting DTS-MA on all of their releases if the community did not make their voices heard.

[Beta-guy]

Originally Posted by singhcr

The reason people are angry (like me) is because these films are being robbed of their detail and original presentation. Distorting the image by removing grain changes the feel and look of the film. Yes, they still look far better than DVD but I also know what it could look like if it wasn't DNR'd to hell. We as enthasists want the best sound and picture possible, and if we don't fight this it may become commonplace as becomes more mainstream because a lot of people want their pictures to look a certain way (crystal clear) regardless of how the film is actually supposed to look like.

Nowadays we have a lot of good options out there. Most if not all films are presented in their OAR and have their original language tracks. I still know a lot of people who want a full-screen picture in English only, regardless of the fact that the movie was in Mandarin and shot in 2.40:1. If you give an inch, they take a mile. I don't think Universal would be putting DTS-MA on all of their releases if the community did not make their voices heard.

I fully agree with you, but I also think we cannot avoid DNR entirely, 300 didn't bother me, people complained about grain, for me it was a wonderful movie, but sometime the grain will get to the point where it is a distraction. it is then I want DNR enployed, personally I want the film industry to film movies in a way to reduce the grain as much as possible. My hope is to get the best of both worlds a clear picture with great detail.

[Reverend Blu]

I want to decide if and when DNR is used.

The best choice for my wants is the actual usage level of DNR being user selectable with the movie being pristine with no DNR processing on the disc.

It can even lead to more viewing as the user can decide on a grainy , medium smooth or very smooth look depending on the scene.

This is kind of if we want our audio equalized or pristine with us being able to decide what processing if any we want.

[StarrySkies]

My primary objection to DNR is that it often makes the image look glaringly unnatural. Why can't we just leave DNR for post-processing to be done by players and/or televisions?

[Beta-guy]

Originally Posted by Reverend Blu

I want to decide if and when DNR is used.

The best choice for my wants is the actual usage level of DNR being user selectable with the movie being pristine with no DNR processing on the disc.

It can even lead to more viewing as the user can decide on a grainy , medium smooth or very smooth look depending on the scene.

This is kind of if we want our audio equalized or pristine with us being able to decide what processing if any we want.

while that would be the best option, the processing power required to do that, would be incredible, the only player even capable of doing that real time (if any) would be the PS3. if that technology does come out later, it won't be for years to come, and in the mean time the DNR issue will continue on.

[Merrick97]

Originally Posted by Beta-guy

while that would be the best option, the processing power required to do that, would be incredible, the only player even capable of doing that real time (if any) would be the PS3. if that technology does come out later, it won't be for years to come, and in the mean time the DNR issue will continue on.

I agree, I doubt its as simple as a blur would be in photoshop.

[Merrick97]

I also have to wonder how some detail may not be lost when a film is restored.

I know NOTHING about a film restoration process, but I would imagine that when fixing an image, some sort of detail has to be filled in.

[jcc]

DNR adn film grain is a great subject for debate because there is no single correct answer. It's a matter of personal taste, the artistic vision of the director, historic considerations, etc.

Personally, for some films, noise or softness in the source material can add to the artistic effect, for others, it would be better to have it look pristine, or better still to be looking at a live performance with no intervening film or digital artifacts whatsoever. Whatever floats your boat.

[RoadLizard]

Its getting completely out of hand. The video "gurus" just sit at their computers waiting to start typing about their misery as soon as a new release hits the shelves. Bunch of focking whiny, miserable, know-it-alls that make it seem like every damned release is crap. They're not happy unless the film looks like it was shot using a sand-screen over the lens. Baaawaaaah!

They always claim "Directors intent".... I just have to ask.... How the fock do they know what the directors intent was? Did they ask him? Were they there when the movie was shot? For older films, they claim that "it didnt look like this in the theater in 1973!". I say GOOD.... we dont want it to look like it did on some shitty theater screen with mono sound in the 70's.

Hey.... overuse of DNR does make some images look a little strange. Faces take on a waxy appearance. But, its not nearly as bad as some are complaining about. And, I would MUCH rather watch the Blu-ray version of Dark City or Patton versus the HORRIBLE DVD versions. Its not even close. And, Blu-ray is REPLACING DVD so therefore it needs to perform better than DVD to actually replace it.

Oh yeah, it doesnt help that the whiners all have 600 foot screens that they sit 3 feet away from.... EVERYTHING looks like crap in that situation! I mean DUH?

*** END RANT ***

[Pro-bassoonist]

I don't think the issue is being overblown!!

I personally have unreservedly supported BR because we finally have a format that could practically replicate everything we needed previous formats to do but they could not. We are this close to having a true cinema experience in our homes and anything that takes us away from film and brings us closer to manipulated digital photography will get a loud denouncement from me.

As much as I could and as much as my writings allow me to I will continue to criticize DNR application. Plain and simple.

Pro-B

ps
I do agree that there is unjustified criticism over the net but the majority of it is well deserved.

[GamerGuyX]

Originally Posted by Merrick97

I have to say that Im starting to get tired of the DNR issue being brought up all the time.

When a new title comes out instead of asking about how the movie looks the first question is usually, Is this titled DNRed?

I agree that there are some cases when it can be a distraction if its overused,

but are people making too big a deal about DNR and have gotten to where they now pause every frame to see if an image is overly smooth?

What happened to just watching a movie and appreciating the fact that it looks better than dvd?

I just think its being overblown, but I do recognize some instances where it does cause a loss of detail.

What do you think? I want to see if we can have a REAL debate in the smackdown section.

I don't understand how anybody that is in this hobby seriously would let something like DNR slide. This is a forum where we discuss HD media. Whats the point of not bringing up any of the issues with various releases? Especially one's that have DNR and EE applied to them which isn't a natural film process.

[Gargamel]

For all the bad buzz about the DNR, I thought Fox's presentation of Patton on Blu-ray looked phenomenal.

[Philnerd]

Originally Posted by Pro-bassoonist

I don't think the issue is being overblown!!

I personally have unreservedly supported BR because we finally have a format that could practically replicate everything we needed previous formats to do but they could not. We are this close to having a true cinema experience in our homes and anything that takes us away from film and brings us closer to manipulated digital photography will get a loud denouncement from me.

In an incredibly rare occurence, I concur 100% with Pro-B.

Merrick, I'm afraid you've got the blu-ray blinders on when you make your arguments. First the blu-ray uber fans poo pooed HD DVD for not having enough bandwidth to preserve detail and/or provide lossless audio like blu-ray (all untrue of course, but that's another subject). Now blu-ray is being dumbed down with DNR that kills detail and makes people look like plastic statues and all of a sudden that's OK because we should just enjoy the movie and be glad it looks better than DVD? Are you kidding??? We could download over compressed 720P internet rips and get what you describe.

Did you read your own post?

[GamerGuyX]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

For all the bad buzz about the DNR, I thought Fox's presentation of Patton on Blu-ray looked phenomenal.

Yet if it didn't have all the DNR applied it would look just that much better. Why wouldn't you wan't the best presentation possible? Why accept anything less?

What need would there be to applying DNR to a 65mm film anyways?