View Single Post
  #339  
Old 10th September 2012, 06:35 PM
dustdevil dustdevil is offline
Cultist
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kent,UK
Default

In reply to Prince Vajda


You're confusing dirt and scratches of the print with film grain. They've got NOTHING to do with each other.

Entirely possible,it was late. I stand corrected

One of the prime examples why you should leave film grain alone and why you shouldn't mess around with DNR. The faces are all waxy and have no details at all, and the djungle looks like CGI. One of the most horrible Blu-rays ever.

Not having seen them I can't say either way,however the screen caps for GBU did show a nasty difference.



Film grain = fault and limitation? Back to film school, mate!

I still stand by this it is a fault and limitation of the process.Now if the director wants a certain grainy look he chooses a certain film stock,if he wants a less grainy look he chooses another and works with the DoP to get that effect.I may not of explained it properly to begin with (or now for that matter). Never went to film school can you tell



There's almost no 'invisible' CGI. In 97 out of 100 cases you can easily tell CGI from traditional effects - it's only a question of how well they are made. If they are really well-made, you'll still see it's CGI, but it won't bother you, because it looks good.


I'm sure they said the same about matte paintings way back
You can tell traditional effects on badly made films just as much.
The point I was trying to make was,maybe I'm naive,unless a "background effect" such as buildings,sky etc is done badly,traditional or cgi,then I don't notice it at all.

Thats not to say that a badly made model thats badly lit or badly detailed and rendered cgi model don't smack you across the face


No harm no foul.
Reply With Quote