Dementia 13 review posted.

by **damnationdoormat** » Wed May 25, 2011 6:43 pm

The transfer on this Blu-ray looks like plastic. The "before" restoration image in the special features actually looks more finely detailed compared to the noise reduced "after" shots. Certainly nowhere near 4/5 star picture quality. Film grain should be preserved, especially on Blu-ray.

by **Alien Redrum** » Wed May 25, 2011 6:55 pm

To be fair, you are about the most critical person on the planet when it comes to video presentation.

by **Spez** » Wed May 25, 2011 8:49 pm

It looked fine. No more film grain. Why should it be preserved? If I took a picture and it had a bunch of shit on it, I would want it cleaned up. Why is film special?

by **TGM** » Wed May 25, 2011 9:43 pm

DDM and Justin were the type that got off on the dancing pubic hair on the screen when watching reel-to-reel educational shorts in grade school.

THE DEATH OF FILM GRAIN 2006 - NEVER FORGET

by **damnationdoormat** » Wed May 25, 2011 9:43 pm

Spez wrote:It looked fine. No more film grain. Why should it be preserved? If I took a picture and it had a bunch of shit on it, I would want it cleaned up. Why is film special?

Film grain is high frequency detail. When removed, you're erasing fine detail, mostly the "looking out a window" effect, that otherwise could be seen especially at HD resolutions. Noise reduction also introduces extremely annoying motion lag that again wouldn't be there if the film was properly presented. It's employed by studios to cater to the uneducated who believe "grains" to be a defect. It is not and it's pointless to pay for noise reduced Blu-rays. Why in the hell spend all that money for a home theater for a "handicapped" experience?

by **TGM** » Wed May 25, 2011 9:52 pm

I'm for anything that blurs that fugly hairlip of his

by **Spez** » Wed May 25, 2011 10:26 pm

Is there supposed to be a difference between the two pictures?

by **TGM** » Wed May 25, 2011 10:43 pm

Spez wrote:Is there supposed to be a difference between the two pictures?

yes, before and after ProActive

by **Neon Maniac** » Thu May 26, 2011 2:06 am

Dementia 13? Yeah, that's timely. :roll:

You're in the wrong year, Titor.

And DDM's right.

by **DJBenz** » Thu May 26, 2011 8:08 am

HorrorTalk isn't a video quality analysis site. There are enough sites out there where individual pixels are examined in minute detail with scant consideration for how entertaining (or not) the film actually is. TBH, I'm not even sure why we bother with video/audio grades any more, I guess it's left over from the days when all there was was DVDs and the quality could vary dramatically between discs.

Frankly I cannot understand anyone's obsession with infitessimally small details like this. DDM, I know you're passionate about it but FFS if the film is good, it doesn't really matter how the video quality is. Have you ever watched a black and white movie, or a subtitled film and become unaware of the fact it is minus colour, or not in your own language because you were so engrossed in the story? I have, and I can honestly say that video quality wouldn't have made the slightest difference (with the exception of distractions like stuttering or major picture glitches). In the same way, the most awesome, reference quality presentation won't make a turkey of a film any more enjoyable. You can't polish a turd.

I totally respect your knowledge of the technical aspects of film presentation, but I think sometimes, especially as a film fan, you obsess over the minor details too much. It's like buying a brand new Ferrari and getting all annoyed because the tread on the tyres (tires, you arseholes) is 1/64th of an inch out on the front nearside.

Do I see the difference between the two screenshots? Yes, absolutely. Would I prefer the sharper version? Yes, absolutely.

Would I notice it during the film? Absolutely not.

by **Alien Redrum** » Thu May 26, 2011 2:54 pm

Agree with pretty much everything DJ says (with the exception of the 'why we still do a/v' part).

I definitely agree we aren't as detailed as, say, Blu-ray.com or whatever for a/v, but I think we speak for the common man when it comes to a/v and I don't think a lot of other sites do that. It seems to be all or nothing. I like it that we somewhat fill that void, even if it's only a brief mention.

The average person doesn't care too much beyond the basics of a/v. They have one question: Does it look and sound good? It looked good to Spez, and I'm confident to the average person it would look good to them, too.

by **Spez** » Thu May 26, 2011 8:14 pm

Hooray for being average!

by **damnationdoormat** » Thu May 26, 2011 10:40 pm

I judge on what given format is capable of given the material its presenting. Blu-ray is capable of amazing, film-like quality and I want the nearest possible representation of what a film source actually looks like on Blu-ray. Not old HD masters with smoothed over fine detail or artificial edge enhancement because studios are either too lazy or don't give a damn. That's not much to ask.

So, more of this:

(Seventh Seal Criterion Blu-ray)

And less of this:

(The Longest Day Blu-ray)

More of this:

(Evil Dead 2 THX DVD)

Less of this:

(Evil Dead 2 Book of the Dead DVD)

More of this:

(How the West Was Won Blu-ray)

Less of this:

(Dark City Blu-ray)

More of this:

(Aliens Blu-ray)

Less of this:

(Scream Blu-ray)

by **DJBenz** » Fri May 27, 2011 7:27 am

damnationdoormat wrote:given the material its presenting.

It's. Strike two. :lol:

That's not much to ask.

It isn't, you're right, but unfortunately average man doesn't see the burning need to have perfectly preserved film grain (I disagree that he would see film grain as a defect, as you suggest earlier) so the film studios don't need to cater to that market. Ultimately the studios are businesses and they exist for one reason only: to make money. If they can do that by doing a half-arsed job of the transfers, employing technicians that don't really understand what they're doing, then they'll do it. The only way to force a change is to boycott any releases that have 'poor' transfers, but we've already established that average man won't feel strongly enough to do that. It sucks for you, but unfortunately you have to live with it.