Can a movie or tv show look to clear on blue-ray or dvd?

[Jayson]

This idea was in the blue-ray thread but it's something that I have thought about myself. Am I the only one who thinks movies should look somewhat imperfect? I love the look of 70's movies. I think film simply looks better than digitial camera's or whatever it is called, in some respects. When you make something to clean-looking it begins to feel like a computer-game IMO. I actually think CGI would even look less fake if it was on film.

Jason

 

[22 Stars]

I think you mean 'too' clear. Sure, professionals in the film and tv industry worked for generations perfecting the art of choosing film stock and lighting to achieve a certain look. But in the digital age all this does not go away. Lighting cgi models is an art form itself, but there is a definite trend towards super clear, sharp images in hollywood film.

 

[SHCone]

This is part of the reason I've held out on going Blu-Ray, to be honest. Film has been a little grainy and 24 frames per second looks a certain way. I was in Best Buy a while back and saw a clip from BATMAN BEGINS, the Batmobile chase across rooftops. It looked like some kind of news video! It didn't look like film.

I don't take some kind of moral issue with it or anything, but personally I don't like it much. Sometimes it's spectacular and beautiful but some things don't translate well.

 

[hamudm]

This is part of the reason I've held out on going Blu-Ray, to be honest. Film has been a little grainy and 24 frames per second looks a certain way. I was in Best Buy a while back and saw a clip from BATMAN BEGINS, the Batmobile chase across rooftops. It looked like some kind of news video! It didn't look like film.

I don't take some kind of moral issue with it or anything, but personally I don't like it much. Sometimes it's spectacular and beautiful but some things don't translate well.

That's nothing to do with Blu-Ray. It actually retains the grain etc... from the original transfer. The advantages are a clearer and more spatial sound mixes, higher resolution images as well as higher bitrates devoted to audio/video resulting in brighter and richer colours etc...

What you're referring to is frame interpolation or "anti judder" technology. this is an option on new TVs that can be turned off if you wish. I'm not a fan of anti-judder; however, some are. If you were watching DVDs or VHS on that same TV the effect would be the same if you had the frame interpolation switched on.

 

[NileQT87]

A good example of DVD vs. Blu-Ray is take a film that has a lot of detail, fabric or dense crowd shots. In the DVD, these shots are kind of blurry and out of focus. On Blu-Ray, you can see faces in the back of the crowd.

A film I've seen on VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray is Amadeus. On VHS, I didn't even see the antler heads at the palace. On DVD, it looks marvelous, but the crowds are a blur and it's a bit too red. On Blu-Ray, suddenly everything just pops. It's a very visually dense and ornate film (a lot of genuinely 18th-century European locations). And of course, that is a film where sound quality actually means something (it just loves blasting you with that opening of Don Giovanni).

I've seen actual (although recent) film stock come out looking just as video game-like as video, too. It depends on the stock.

I would say, overall, the look of '80s films appeals to me the most. Just enough dirt, grit and speckle combined with a lot of warm tones. '70s films were really grainy as gritty "realism" was the style of the decade. The vibrant Technicolor extravaganza that came before it was not nearly as dirty-looking and with considerably brighter, flat lighting. Add to the fact that the '70s seemed to have a foundation makeup shortage. LOL.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I've actually seen quite a bit of Blu Ray stuff that just looked way too damn clear to me.

When real life can't compete, I make a personal decision to scale back a little. That or stop taking LSD.

I remember being particularly turned off by the Blu Ray version of Spiderman III. It just didn't look right to me, and some of the special effects came off as blatantly easy to pick apart and just kind of hokey.

On the flip side, I've seen some Blu Ray stuff that's looked pretty good, just not significantly good enough to make me want to take all the necessary steps to have it in my home at its peak potential.

 

[wamdue]

I remember being particularly turned off by the Blu Ray version of Spiderman III. It just didn't look right to me, and some of the special effects came off as blatantly easy to pick apart and just kind of hokey.

you can say alot about the specail FX of the later superman movies, but one thing you can say about all the movies is that they never meant to be watched in HD, so its neither the fault of the film or the format if it looks bad in HD.

now if Superman Returns was to look bad in HD that is a whole other issue.

I think it is unfair to judge HD and if its worth while, on films that were not made in HD, which by itself is a comment on how worth while Blue Ray is.

 

[jkladis]

I think you mean 'too' clear. Sure, professionals in the film and tv industry worked for generations perfecting the art of choosing film stock and lighting to achieve a certain look. But in the digital age all this does not go away. Lighting cgi models is an art form itself, but there is a definite trend towards super clear, sharp images in hollywood film.

I would say, overall, the look of '80s films appeals to me the most. Just enough dirt, grit and speckle combined with a lot of warm tones. '70s films were really grainy as gritty "realism" was the style of the decade. The vibrant Technicolor extravaganza that came before it was not nearly as dirty-looking and with considerably brighter, flat lighting. Add to the fact that the '70s seemed to have a foundation makeup shortage. LOL.

Well said and totally agree on that last assessment.

The word "digital" should not automatically equate to bland. I think the biggest hazard it poses is laziness. No longer needing to develop rushes and concentrate intently on lighting quite as much, also then the amount of manipulation that's handled by a computer, you risk having the art reduced to mass-production blah.

 

[NileQT87]

Here's an example of the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD to give you an understanding of what changes.

(I admit this is a 25-year-old film, so it'll obviously look different from a C.G.I. action spectacle.)

More comparisons: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews44/amadeus_blu-ray.htm

The first time I saw these side-by-sides, I was gob-smacked. It really makes a drastic difference. And to think all those years I had been wearing out my ancient Amadeus VHS within the inch of its life (it's pretty grainy, practically colorless and just plain sad-looking now--and that's without mentioning the pan & scan). And I thought the DVD was a revelation. I was suddenly seeing backgrounds and textiles I wasn't even aware of before (as I said before, the first time I saw the DVD, my brain was going--'Hey, I don't remember those antler heads being there!' The portentous skull in the cabin was completely missing because of the cropping!). The Blu-Ray makes it infinitely more beautiful, rich and lush on a completely different scale.

This one Blu-Ray completely sold me that there was any difference whatsoever between DVD and Blu-Ray.

Also, it's a huge difference if you're fond of making computer graphics. A DVD picture is not all that big on a computer screen. Making wallpapers is infinitely easier with these large high-definition images that DVD does not have.

 

[Chindogu]

I remember being particularly turned off by the Blu Ray version of Spiderman III. It just didn't look right to me, and some of the special effects came off as blatantly easy to pick apart and just kind of hokey.

you can say alot about the specail FX of the later superman movies, but one thing you can say about all the movies is that they never meant to be watched in HD, so its neither the fault of the film or the format if it looks bad in HD.

now if Superman Returns was to look bad in HD that is a whole other issue.

I think it is unfair to judge HD and if its worth while, on films that were not made in HD, which by itself is a comment on how worth while Blue Ray is.

Actually, Film has a higher resolution than Blu Ray's 1080p HD. So any flaws in the Special FX should be even more noticeable when viewing the Film print. I think most people have just gotten used to watching older movies on "low def" DVDs.

As mentioned above by hamudm , it's the "anti-judder" technology that gives a film on Blu-Ray that unnatural "smoothness" to the action. It's something that can in fact be turned off. Also, Noise Reduction software can be used to take out a lot of the grain we're used to seeing in film prints, creating an overly "clear" image. This has nothing really to do with Blu-Ray, but with how the film was Mastered into HD.

Of course, I'm not surprised that people still aren't sold on Blu-Ray since I rarely ever see HD systems set up properly in stores.

 

[NileQT87]

Blu-Ray is only ¼ of full film resolution.

 

[Trubinator]

Yup ... the much-hated anti-judder. My friend calls it the "soap opera" effect.

 

[NileQT87]

Yeah... That anti-judder "soap opera" effect (also what I call it) is just ghastly.

Though I wish recent films would still play occasionally with a flatter, warm lighting and less of that cold "digital" look (which even has people who talk about the better look of film using digital-like lighting and that fake video game look, which essentially defeats the purpose of using film in order to replicate the look of older films).

Honestly, I find modern television to be closer to old films in terms of pacing and film look than modern films are. Television is taking over the film industry and it shows. The special effects are now even up to par (and television is capable of using them unobtrusively and fluidly on a level that hasn't been seen in film since the '80s-'90s because of the less-is-more budget-related factor). And for us latex creature lovers, television still has a place for them over C.G.I. abuse. I think people in the film industry are starting to push back against the Lucas proponents of fully-digital surroundings (and only use it if the surrealism is intentional) and understand C.G.I. still has issues with gravity and density (though has gotten a lot better).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The only time I ever saw a film look "too good" on Blu-Ray was 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the BR version, you can actually see the projection screen that was used for all the outdoor "Dawn of Man" sequences. (None of those scenes were actually shot outside. It was all in a studio. And in the BR version, you can tell that the sky is a projection, 'cuz you can see the screen behind it.)

 

[sidious618]

If there are great nude scenes then it can never be too clear.

 

[wamdue]

If there are great nude scenes then it can never be too clear.

looking at the pictures posted by NileQT87 the only part where the extra pixels are really worth it, is on the people.

sure everything else seems sharper, but its only on the people where it actually seems to matter

 

[Icemizer]

Soon film will no longer exist except in small art movies. Everything will be shot on hard drive and converted to whatever the newest standard will be. Eventually this will be, did you like the 2d or 3d version of Star Wars better?

 

[sidious618]

Soon film will no longer exist except in small art movies. Everything will be shot on hard drive and converted to whatever the newest standard will be. Eventually this will be, did you like the 2d or 3d version of Star Wars better?

No version of Star Wars is bad, mate.

 

[NileQT87]

One thing I've noticed on DVD is that the picture is noticeably squished together and when it is put on Blu-Ray the proportions become more natural with drastically better skin tone. Those Amadeus comparisons prove just how dramatically DVD is squished together from its original film source (everyone looks much skinnier on DVD than on Blu-Ray).

Granted, this is an example of videotape footage that is pretty much ancient, but look no further than Elvis' '68 Comeback Special (besides being tinted a horrible orange color that wasn't on its previous releases). If you put that video on your computer, it looks like it's completely at the wrong width. Elvis has a long face, but never *that* long. I remember when people would post screen caps from the DVD, it just never looked right proportionately, and you'd be seriously tempted to go into Photoshop and try to make it look a little more realistic.

I mean, this is shockingly distorted: http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7978/6820leather2046.jpg

DVD screencaps are often horrible to look at next to photographs, while film stills from a better source can look like photography.

There was another DVD/Blu-Ray comparison site I found where they had Terminator 2 as an example--and that one was REALLY dramatic (as in: the DVD was squished beyond human proportions and the Blu-Ray corrected it). You can also see this effect on that above Amadeus comparison link--check out the two images of Jeffrey Jones as Emperor Joseph II. The head proportions are, once again, squished and too red with grainy eyes vs. the image spread out more and the color corrected and more detailed.

Overall, on your analog T.V. you're not going to notice much at all. Even a smallish HD screen still plays DVDs that look just fine and barely different (though the bigger the HD screen, the more noticeable the quality change gets). The real test of quality is if you get into screencaps on your computer, then you realize just how dramatic the Blu-Ray upgrade is.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Soon film will no longer exist except in small art movies. Everything will be shot on hard drive and converted to whatever the newest standard will be. Eventually this will be, did you like the 2d or 3d version of Star Wars better?

No version of Star Wars is bad, mate.

I dunno about that.