FILM RESTORATION: So "noise reduction" is also a movie term?

[Radiotron]

Hum...

Check this piece from DVDFile.com.

Noise reduction is also affecting movies. I wasn't aware of that at all.

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6744

They have an ex taken from 2 versions of Pan’s Labyrinth.

[Pinknik]

I've read about this before, on several occasions, including Pan's Labyrinth and Patton. While I'm against it, I must say that the comparison photo here seems like an exaggeration, because on my television, my copy of Pan's does not look THAT soft. Perhaps that's something to do with a still as opposed to motion, or my computer monitor over my TV, I don't know.

[I Am The Lolrus]

If you think thats scary, go see what they did to Dracula. Might want to bring a trash bin: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=925329&page=4

[Felix Martinez]

We're living in the No-Noise era of HD. I hope it ends quick...my thoughts (http://allspinzoneblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/blu-ray-grain-rape-or-how-i-learned-to.html).

[therockman]

I have a Nikon digital camera and I have been taking digital photographs for about 7 years. The term "noise" has always been used to describe distortion of any kind in a digital photo. I use Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 which has a noise reduction system that I can utilize to reduce the distortion in my photos.

[therockman]

Hum...

Check this piece from DVDFile.com.

Noise reduction is also affecting movies. I wasn't aware of that at all.

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6744

They have an ex taken from 2 versions of Pan’s Labyrinth.




Actually, to be more accurate the title of this thread should read that noise reduction is a video term, not just a movie term. Noise reduction has been used in all videos, not just movies, since at least the 1980's, and maybe before that although I had never heard about it until about 1985.

[David R. Modny]

There is actually another side to this.

Let me state first, up front, that I tend to stand on the side that's against heavy-handed grain scrubbing. That said, there are times when excessive granular noise can wreak havoc with the MPEG compression scheme on standard DVD's. I'm very sensitive to compression artifacts, and I have DVD's where the "dancing" artifacts -- particularly on flat or shaded background scenes -- drive me up a wall due to an already noisy source. The problem is that the the compression scheme simply sees the granular noise as part of the signal. This is also something that a still capture of a frame can't really convey as well as a piece of moving "video." In practice, this is the argument that folks like Lowry put forth when they use NR. And, IMO, there's *some* basis to that argument. Of course, the problem arises when it becomes heavy-handed or it's applied to a source that really doesn't need it. In a perfect world this wouldn't even be an issue if we're talking about restoration with a new master film source in mind as the only end-product...say, something intended for theatrical film projection. But, with any lossy medium such as standard DVD -- an already flawed medium IMHO due to the MPEG compression standard -- I can see the other side of the coin.


I'll also add that I haven't really entered the hi-def or Blu-Ray market yet, so my remarks only apply to what I've personally experienced with standard DVD (so far). :)

[Billy Budapest]

I did not find the samples of the UK and US Pan's Labyrinth appreciably different. Plus, with an image capture of a particular shot, there are frame-to-frame differences, so the softening of the little girls hair that the poster on the other forum sees could be due to that. Watching the movie in a regular way, at a regular viewing distance, with an average size screen (as opposed to something really big which will tend to look less sharp anyway), I don't see how this would be a problem. YMMV, as usual . . .

[Spirit Crusher]

DVNR on Looney Tunes:

http://thad-k.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-dvnr-sucks-pt-1.html

If DVNR is used in this case and it harms the image, why use it? All film stocks have grain and aren't going to look perfect in this modern "digital - squeeky clean" world.

[lukpac]

If you think thats scary, go see what they did to Dracula. Might want to bring a trash bin: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=925329&page=4

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not an expert on that movie, but I've read comments from Robert Harris (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/ht-software-high-definition/262992-few-words-about-bram-stokers-dracula-bd.html) that indicate that the look of the Blu Ray version is correct, and that previous home versions were too light.

[lukpac]

DVNR on Looney Tunes:

http://thad-k.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-dvnr-sucks-pt-1.html

If DVNR is used in this case and it harms the image, why use it? All film stocks have grain and aren't going to look perfect in this modern "digital - squeeky clean" world.

It doesn't look like the same frames were used for those comparisons. In the river shot, you can see Bugs is farther across on the DVD than on the laserdisc.

While there do seem to be a few issues with the DVD, on the whole it sure looks better than the laserdisc to me, at least based on those stills. Not only is the LD washed out, it is lacking detail that's on the DVD.

[Spirit Crusher]

It doesn't look like the same frames were used for those comparisons. In the river shot, you can see Bugs is farther across on the DVD than on the laserdisc.

While there do seem to be a few issues with the DVD, on the whole it sure looks better than the laserdisc to me, at least based on those stills. Not only is the LD washed out, it is lacking detail that's on the DVD.
No argument there. I don't know what's worse, but this sort of DVNR is noticeable. I've seen it used on the Simpsons, as well - I don't see why, really.

How about this:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/304/869/1600/bigsnooze01.jpg?force=1

Or this

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/304/869/1600/kittyfoiled04.jpg?force=1

[lukpac]

No argument there. I don't know what's worse, but this sort of DVNR is noticeable. I've seen it used on the Simpsons, as well - I don't see why, really.

I know the first couple seasons had some pretty serious issues in places - Smilin' Joe Fission comes to mind. Although I had thought those were issues with MPEG compression, rather than noise reduction. Keep in mind the Simpsons sets have come from video, not film...

[David R. Modny]

And again, *still* vidcaps don't give us a total indication of how the MPEG scheme will handle any noise or *excessive* granular artifacts. Only a piece of DVD video in motion will do that. In practice, the MPEG scheme simply sees the noise as "usable" signal and tries to compress it as well! This is the "happy medium" paradigm that I think restoration has to deal with when taking compression artifacts into account.

(Or, how those images will look on a real-world display under normal viewing conditions)

Bottom line, while they may be a start, these vidcaps don't tell the *complete* story IMHO. :)

[Rachael Bee]

I have the Patton Blu-ray and it looks like it has been cleaned up in an attempt to make it look like it was just made for the Discovery HD Theater channel....:shake:

Robert Harris told me that he thought as much as 25% of the high-frequency detail got washed away on an HTF thread. I think he's dead on. I used an old Laserdisc to see where some of the grain used to be. Then, watching the film, few of the close-ups look really detailed and the longer shots really suffer for much detail, the kind of detail Blu-ray can exploit!

Fox, New Line, and Lionsgate are the usual suspects......as they......

DEEE-FACE THE MOVIES.....:shake:

[I Am The Lolrus]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not an expert on that movie, but I've read comments from Robert Harris (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/ht-software-high-definition/262992-few-words-about-bram-stokers-dracula-bd.html) that indicate that the look of the Blu Ray version is correct, and that previous home versions were too light.
Did you bother to take a look at the screenshots in the link I provided? Look a couple of pages forward too. The bluray version has eliminated color, significantly raised the black floor (truncated dark data turned to pure 0,0,0), and in certain scenes things are just gone or different colors. I don't know who Robert Harris is but that review he gave sounds horrendously ignorant based on the clear visual differences between this bluray release and all previous releases. It looks like they put a blanket auto color correction filter on each frame so it completely disregards any intended color data when originally making it... eg the blue moon light etc...

[lukpac]

Did you bother to take a look at the screenshots in the link I provided? Look a couple of pages forward too. The bluray version has eliminated color, significantly raised the black floor (truncated dark data turned to pure 0,0,0), and in certain scenes things are just gone or different colors. I don't know who Robert Harris is but that review he gave sounds horrendously ignorant based on the clear visual differences between this bluray release and all previous releases. It looks like they put a blanket auto color correction filter on each frame so it completely disregards any intended color data when originally making it... eg the blue moon light etc...

The Blu Ray version supposedly was produced to match an answer print made at the time which is considered correct. In this context, the previous releases (LD, DVD) were not correct. And yes, I've seen those screen shots and plenty of others.

Robert Harris restores films - he recently worked on the Godfather trilogy. He didn't work on Dracula but I believe has talked to the people that did.

[Greatest Hits]

I usually only notice it on animation. With live-action, I can't usually tell unless a really obvious botch appears. I personally did not purchase an HDTV to view a bunch of dust, tears, and scratches popping up on the screen.

[I Am The Lolrus]

The Blu Ray version supposedly was produced to match an answer print made at the time which is considered correct. In this context, the previous releases (LD, DVD) were not correct. And yes, I've seen those screen shots and plenty of others.

Robert Harris restores films - he recently worked on the Godfather trilogy. He didn't work on Dracula but I believe has talked to the people that did.
well its peculiar that after 16 years including the original theatrical release and all subsequent releases on VHS, DVD, etc... they decided "oh that wasn't it" and release something that seems like it has problems. Blue light from the moon turns to green in some scenes... clearly no human was there to oversee that major problem... which leads to believe it was a kid pushing a "modern dark" film button with auto color correct. The color casts in the original made it work.

[lukpac]

well its peculiar that after 16 years including the original theatrical release and all subsequent releases on VHS, DVD, etc... they decided "oh that wasn't it" and release something that seems like it has problems. Blue light from the moon turns to green in some scenes... clearly no human was there to oversee that major problem... which leads to believe it was a kid pushing a "modern dark" film button with auto color correct. The color casts in the original made it work.

You certainly have a right to not *like* the results, but I think it is wrong to assume they are *incorrect*.

[Rachael Bee]

Anybody who doesn't know who Robert Harris is should google him. When he talks it's sort'a like when E.F. Hutton does, I stop and listen.

[wayneklein]

It's been used for years and is the bane of older films--if used carefully it can enhance them but it tends to be overused and makes the films look funky

[David R. Modny]

It's been used for years and is the bane of older films--if used carefully it can enhance them but it tends to be overused and makes the films look funky

Of course, the classic example of the process gone totally wrong was when Lowry once accidentally scrubbed away some window raindrops in a scene -- during the "Citizen Kane" restoration -- that the computer thought was random noise! Something they had to own up to afterward.

[apileocole]

Is it processing or poor quality sources / transfers that accounts for so many B&W and vintage films being soft on video? Shouldn't a pro-shot 35mm film be sharp as a tack on a screen that's a mere few feet across? 'cause I love a real sharp B&W film, where it looks kinda holographic and delicately shaded instead of blurry and milky. When it's super sharp and "together," it seems to hold my eyes better even if it's loaded with grain, whereas a blurry and milky image feels, well... dull. Unfortunately I've seen the former a whole lot less often than the latter. I wouldn't want say, the 1931 Dracula looking scrubbed; it actually feels better to me looking, let's say gritty.

Does film grain itself bother anyone? As opposed to video noise and distortions.

Should we draw stict comparisons between these processes and NoNoise on music recordings?

It seems there is a positive point to it where it concerns using it to reduce video artifacts as a consequence of MPEG encoding of grainy images. Does it follow that, if used in certain ways, the benefits can outweigh the losses?

[Bahax]

I personally did not purchase an HDTV to view a bunch of dust, tears, and scratches popping up on the screen.
This is not about dust, tears, and scratches. I think most would agree that those should be removed.

It's about software operators removing an innately filmic quality of movies shot on film.

Film grain is not a flaw. It is a function/result of how the medium works. All movies shot on film have grain, no matter how fine it may be.