Can't Stomach Blu-Ray
- Thread starter Tombfyre
- Start date
I'm not a tech hound so your numbers mean nothing to me.
I do say its marginal so thank you for agreeing with me.
Call me when the next format change happens where I can really see that big leap.
Then I'll put it simply for you: the increase in quality from VHS to DVD is slightly less then the increase from DVD to Blu-Ray. Therefore, calling it marginal is wrong.
If you don't care, then great, more power to you. But if you think the difference is marginal, then you're wrong.
The resolution increase is quite a bit, yes. However, I think the problem is that in order for a film to actually take advantage of that, it has to be shot in HD. As most movies/series haven't been, any (re-)release on Bluray will negate the resolution increase (beyond small details, perhaps). Some people expect all their old movies to look 10 times better; that just ain't happening.
completely wrong - as long as you have a decent* 35 mm source (such as for Dr.No, 2001, Blade Runner etc etc) you can make a decent HD print because 35 mm is higher resolution than 1080p.
* note I say "decent" - so a well-cared for master.
See also:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/07/1...nt-understand-using-hdtv-to-watch-old-movies/
This is a common misconception. 35mm film has a great deal more resolution in it than is offered by Blu-ray. There is some debate exactly how much resolution; according to wikipedia it's about 2485×2970, about 2-3 times the detail offered on Blu-ray. Other estimates put it closer to 4k or about 3-4 times Blu-ray.
The issue with old movies on Blu-ray is that the film grain is much more apparent, so an older movie in high definition will usually look less crisp and sharp than one produced more recently as film stocks improved. Some older movies however were shot on quite good stock and look just as sharp as something recent, for example the 2001 print no doubt retains a great bit more detail than even Blu-ray can capitalize on so far. I know the Blu-ray version looks light years better than the DVD, and I hear it's even more amazing on the big screen.
Yes, I know analog film has a potentially higher "resolution" (even though that's not really applicable), when the film is of quality and doesn't have too much grain.
But somehow, we don't see that on a lot of re-released Bluray movies. Most of the ones I've seen looked only marginally better then the dvd's -- and even that only when paying very close attention. Somewhere down the line, things seem to go wrong, perhaps due to budget or something. It's like they simply use an upscaled DVD as master, instead of the original film.
Not only that, but even when it's a fantastic transfer, the sets and effects and such rarely look better on Bluray; they simply weren't expecting the viewers to see that kind of detail. When shot in HD, they are, and the sets have more detail to match. That does make a difference.
But somehow, we don't see that on a lot of re-released Bluray movies. Most of the ones I've seen looked only marginally better then the dvd's -- and even that only when paying very close attention. Somewhere down the line, things seem to go wrong, perhaps due to budget or something. It's like they simply use an upscaled DVD as master, instead of the original film.
Not only that, but even when it's a fantastic transfer, the sets and effects and such rarely look better on Bluray; they simply weren't expecting the viewers to see that kind of detail. When shot in HD, they are, and the sets have more detail to match. That does make a difference.
Why not? We're talking about motion pictures here, film projected onto screens measured in feet. Any decent motion picture is going to need a lot more attention to detail than a TV show, even an HD one.
Good point. So basically, it's just the crappy transfer that makes a lot of the Bluray releases look exactly like dvd releases? Or is it something else?
Certainly most digital work... and a big chunk of material is being shot digitally now... for film is done at least at a resolution of 2k, which is roughly comparable to HDTV. Some stuff is being done at 4k, but I believe that's still rare. 2K in general is a good benchmark for film in general. So if we're talking about film, anything that's been shot relatively recently OR has been restored well will benefit from Blu-ray.
I don't find that the argument that you'll see things that weren't intended to be seen holds up much either; this will probably be true for early HDTV television programs where things were being shot in HD but were still mostly presented in SD, but not so much for film because the perceptual resolution of film is a lot closer to Blu-ray then it is DVD. As an aside, theaters that use digital projectors need to be at least a resolution of 2k for people to not notice a quality loss from moving to digital presentation over analog; this is again roughly comparable to Blu-Ray resolution.
I'm not a tech hound so your numbers mean nothing to me.
I do say its marginal so thank you for agreeing with me.
Call me when the next format change happens where I can really see that big leap.
You hardly need to be a tech hound to understand basic numbers. But the whole argument is moot because eventually the distributors will stop stocking DVDs and the Blu-ray players will be so cheap that everyone will have them. It'll be some years before digital distribution fully takes off.
^ I'm not trying to be anal about it, but it's actually Blu-ray, not Blue-ray (not the absence of an E).
Note. I just had to point this out. Highly ironic in context.
It depends on the size of the television as well. On a smaller TV you probably can't tell much if any difference between Blu-ray and DVD.
Haha, good one. My mistake was on obvious typo though.^ I'm not trying to be anal about it, but it's actually Blu-ray, not Blue-ray (not the absence of an E).
Note. I just had to point this out. Highly ironic in context.
You can on a 42" hdtv, if the bluray release is a sufficiently good one.
Surely the excessive use of grain removal techniques is not the sole reason for the amount of low quality bluray releases?
You can if you're sitting close enough. And I don't mean sticking your nose a few inches from the screen either
I could tell the difference between DVD and BD on my old 32" HD Ready LCD from about 8 feet away. The difference wasn't huge though. I now own a 46" Full HD LCD that I watch from the same distance (maybe even a couple of inches less) and the difference is staggering.
And DNR (digital noise reduction) is a huge problem with a lot of BD releases, especially most things released by Warner.
And DNR (digital noise reduction) is a huge problem with a lot of BD releases, especially most things released by Warner.
I'm notoriously behind the times when it comes to new entertainment systems (While I've got multiple DVD players, I still use a VCR more than anything else).
Probably won't get a blue-ray until after purple-ray has come out...
Probably won't get a blue-ray until after purple-ray has come out...
I'll wait for Orangeray then.Are you kidding?
As mentioned, 35mm film has much greater resolution that you'll even get right now on blu-ray. Since getting my blu-ray, I'm much more interested in the older movies. If you can, I suggest you check out Patton, Casablanca, and 2001. I nearly shit myself when I saw Casablanca. It looks like it was filmed yesterday.
I'm sure you've seen some crappy DVD releases that were obviously transfered from a VHS source. Imagine if I were trying to sell a VHS purist on DVD and he saw that, a movie with clear VHS noise lines. He would, like Captain Craig, conclude that DVD is only a marginal improvement over VHS.
I've got Due South season one on DVD, and there are points where huge VHS noise lines run up and down the screen like the tape was damaged. Extremely annoying. Had that been the first DVD release I ever saw, I probably would have just stuck with VHS.
A proper transfer is what's important. Captain Craig, just out of curiosity, what blu-ray movies have you seen?
Similar threads
