DVD Talk Forum - Shades of Blu

Page 3 of 3

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)

- HD Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk-55/)

- - Shades of Blu - November 2006 (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk/482285-shades-blu-november-2006-a.html)

Adam Tyner

11-03-06 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshd2012

Don't forget about Gary Murrell

Echoing what others have said, I don't consider Gary to be a reliable source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshd2012

I do not have the means to do a proper comparison over the Internet, though I'm not sure if that would satisfy your desire to discredit me either.

At least where this theory is concerned, in my opinion, there's nothing to discredit.

It's easy to check. Compare the VC-1-encoded version of Mission: Impossible III (or any of several Warner titles) to the MPEG-2-encoded version. Others have, and none that I've seen have reported what you're claiming.

joshd2012

11-03-06 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Tyner

It's easy to check. Compare the VC-1-encoded version of Mission: Impossible III (or any of several Warner titles) to the MPEG-2-encoded version. Others have, and none that I've seen have reported what you're claiming.

Why do I get the feeling that even when I do post the differences, you will just end up saying it is video noise and not grain? Oh well, I'll humor you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Where I do think the compression codec comes into play is that the Blu-ray is noisier in many scenes. For example, the green wall in the background of the shot at the 13:35 mark is grainy on both discs but less so and more stable on the HD DVD.

Adam Tyner

11-03-06 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshd2012

Why do I get the feeling that even when I do post the differences, you will just end up saying it is video noise and not grain?

Because that's almost certainly the case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshd2012

Oh well, I'll humor you.

"Grainy" doesn't inherently refer to "film grain", the writer of that exact quote has already posted in this thread that he thinks your claims are without merit, and I've already referenced that quote in an earlier post!

Quote:

Josh pointed out a couple of extremely minor concerns but concedes that it could be a factor of the hardware. From the sound of things, if the VC-1 version is concealing film grain, the MPEG-2 version apparently is too.

Deftones

11-03-06 12:59 PM

Thanks for making my Friday off. This is some good readin'! :lol:

joshd2012

11-03-06 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Tyner

Because that's almost certainly the case?

"Grainy" doesn't inherently refer to "film grain", the writer of that exact quote has already posted in this thread that he thinks your claims are without merit, and I've already referenced that quote in an earlier post!

Oh come on!

There is no point in arguing this anymore if it comes down to "grainy doesn't refer to grain". What other grain is there when talking about film? Wouldn't he have said "noisy" if it referred to video noise?

Enjoy bickering amongst yourselves. I am done with this subject.

Adam Tyner

11-03-06 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshd2012

Wouldn't he have said "noisy" if it referred to video noise?

You'd have to ask Josh.

I have seen a number of reviews of shot-on-video that have referred to the visuals as "grainy". The definition of "grainy", after all, reads "Made of or resembling grain". "...or resembling..." does fit the definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshd2012

Enjoy bickering amongst yourselves. I am done with this subject.

Thread closed.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 PM.

Page 3 of 3

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page