Re: DVNR artefacts ain't gonna kill ya

["Schweikert" <rschweik at nsw.bigpond.net.au>]

---

>Bonjour everybody, 
>
>I would like your opinion on the following.
>
>I'm having an discussion  with a client about overuse of noise reduction 
>in transferring archives material.
>  This is old 16mm films (colors and b&w) that he wants me to transfer to digibeta. The cassette I was sent to use as an example of what they want clearly shows examples of noise reduction artefacts (pixillation of quick movement)
>
> However, the overall look is VERY sharp and I'm having
>a hard time convincing him that although some dust and softness 
>is acceptable in archives material, presence on noise reduction artefacts
>is totally unacceptable for most ...ahem.....QC houses.  His point is that the crisp picture looks better and a little DVNR artefact ain't gonna kill ya....
>


If noise reduction artefacts aren't going to kill you, neither will some dirt. 

It's a no win battle. Small amount of noise reduction, takes off some of the major dirt and softness problems. Only complete restoration will remove the whole lot. But what producer can afford this? Especially for archival material.

Personally, I don't like the artefacts. It looks odd. Dirt is acceptable to "the average viewer". If they see pixillation  of quick movement or other strange DVNR  effects, they think there is something wrong, can't work out what it is, so the picture looks bad.

None of us like dirt. But? It's then up to the producer to sell his product and overcome any criticism from any QC facility.

Good luck



Schweikert


---
thanks to John Palmisano for support in 1999
No advertising/marketing allowed on the main TIG.  Contact rob at alegria.com
1033 subscribers in 40 countries on Wed Jan 27 04:40:36 CST 1999
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/
anonymous messaging now at http://www.alegria.com/HyperNews/get/ubique.html