Wow. I'm looking at the above pics on my phone, and I zoomed them in all the way. I guess I can see what could be construed as banding around the lights in the top pic, and... is that supposed to be banding at the very top right of the bottom pic? (Not that I'd even be looking there while watching the film.)If you can't see it in these pictures. . .
To be fair, the logic is more along the lines of "if you can't see the banding on your display, which other "details" aren't visible". So a new/other display could bring out more details, inadvertently also highlighting problems present in the source. It's the same reason that analog TV looked worse on HD TVs back in the day.What fun logic. "If you can't see the banding, you need a new display that will make the images look worse".
You're the guy who thought Re:Zero was acceptable...Are you sure? I literally cannot see any in that set of jpgs. Nor did I notice any when I watched the disc recently.
Won't lie, it is so slight I have to get close enough for my nose to touch my monitor to even notice it. Certainly not worth making any fuss over.Here you go my dude:
It's the top corner with the banding but zoomed in. You can zoom in on this picture of mine if you can't see it- I assure you- it's there.
I agree that shot alone isn't worth fussing about, but the other ones are worse.Won't lie, it is so slight I have to get close enough for my nose to touch my monitor to even notice it. Certainly not worth making any fuss over.
You're the guy who thought Re:Zero was acceptable...
Nice try, but a little wide of the mark.Really, though? "A piece of s**t"?
Not just "poor" or "substandard"?
I can see it sitting a few inches away from my monitor, but on my TV from a few feet back? Unlikely. Making a stink over the likes of Re:Zero or Steins;Gate's authoring I can get behind, because you don't have to strain yourself to see the flaws, but I feel like giving distributors crap for authors like this when they're perfectly fine and barely noticeable to 90% of the viewing audience is a bit much.I agree that shot alone isn't worth fussing about, but the other ones are worse.
is pretty noticeable. Look at the chair on the right. See how the colour shifts? That's what I'm seeing in all of those screencaps to varying degrees.
I forgot exactly what you said, so I take that back. Sorry man.Nice try, but a little wide of the mark.
I guess my phone just doesn't have the colour palette to allow the banding to show up. I'll take a look at your zoomed-in shot on a monitor at some point.
I get it, but isn't the point of a Blu-ray release to make the best possible looking version? If it's from the source- then that's fine- but the film is a 100% digital production, which lowers the chance of it being a source issue- I'd assume it's the compressionist's fault- but unless I saw the source files, I can't say for sure.but I feel like giving distributors crap for authors like this when they're perfectly fine and barely noticeable to 90% of the viewing audience is a bit much.