>>71988287
>GRAIN is GOOD
No it's not.
That said if trying to remove it shits up the picture then removal is bad.
You either have high quality film or don't.

>>71988287
It's funny you mention Jurassic park, the first thing I noticed on the BR was the grain. Threw me back to VHS days and not in a good way. I've seen much older movies with much better quality.

File: 0000135mm.m2ts_snapshot_00.21.52_[2016.07.05_18.26.59].jpg (528 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [Google]

528 KB, 1280x720

>>71988623
the 35mm rip looks decently better

>>71988783
I guess it's the upscaling to 1080p that fucks it up.

>>71988850
35mm doesnt need to be "upscaled" though. It can be enlarged to any size and should still look as sharp regardless.

>>71988941
Checked it out.
It outputs REAL 4k (not that 4k marketing bullshit that's really 2k).
There is literally no excuse for shoddy releases.

File: Jurassic_Park_t00.mkv_snapshot_00.28.01_[2016.07.14_15.29.14].jpg (141 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

141 KB, 1920x1080

>>71988623
its not so much the grain youre seeing but the blurred removal of it. just looks muddy overall

The JP Blus are generally shit
Someone uploaded a 35MM rip that is really good but needs some slight touching up
I wonder if any kind soul ever went to the trouble of doing that

>>71988783
That looks like fucking shit

>>71988577
>Grain is not good
t. dumbo

>>71989293
>I'm such an artist
I bet you put all your facebook pictures in grayscale too.

File: 0000135mm.m2ts_snapshot_00.32.12_[2016.07.05_17.21.42].jpg (153 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [Google]

153 KB, 1280x720

>>71989306
grain is a product of the medium. removing it destroys the image behind it

>>71989184
It needs some major work, here's how it looks uncleaned. Projector artifacts and weird colors

>>71989306
You literally have no idea of what you're saying. Which is very rare on /tv/, of course

Grain is not good in itself (since it's an unwanted artifact), but removal of grain hurts the image more than just leaving it alone.

>>71989369
>grain is a product of the medium. removing it destroys the image behind it
Yeah you're right. As I first stated it makes grain removal bad, but doesn't make grain good.

>>71989549
Youre right, I worded my original statement wrong. I was meaning that grain is good as it should be left on the film instead of actively trying to scrub it and making it worse

File: 2984_2_1080p.jpg (823 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

823 KB, 1920x1080

>mfw people defending DNR near me

>>71989801
what are some of the best non-DNR'd movies?

>>71989188
It doesn't

File: 1468276081540.png (67 KB, 1982x1133) Image search: [Google]

67 KB, 1982x1133

>>71989801
>Legitimately looking into Laserdisc and HD Laserdisc for my home media needs because I'm sick of dealing with this shit

I can't be the only one, surely...

You can really see the dated CGI now. Raptors look horrifying.