Should I upgrade my DVD to Blu...

Given that Blu Ray is now pretty commonplace in most of our collections I was thinking that it may be a good idea to have a thread in which we could post our opinion on titles we pick up which are readily available on DVD.

With so many poor transfers it's easy to find yourself double dipping on a much-loved title only to discover that you were better off saving your money and sticking with the DVD.

Young Guns being a prime example of this, the Blu Ray is sub standard in pretty much every area. When viewed alongside the DVD it's faults are all the more obvious, when a 10-year-old DVD has a superior picture to the remastered Blu Ray you know you're in trouble.

28 Days Later is equally poor with truly dreadful picture quality which makes the film almost unwatchable at times.

On the other hand there are numerous great titles which have an obvious jump in quality in the transition from DVD to Blu Ray, Sunshine is simply an awe-inspiring release, with perhaps the greatest sound mix of any film ever released and is worth upgrading for that alone. The picture quality is also superb.

Zulu, which I picked up today is similarly stunning. The picture quality is outstanding and may very well be the best released title on the format tha I have seen.

This thread is for other boardsies to recommend titles which are worth dumping the DVD for the Blu?

rednik

I totally agree with you. Also concerts on blu which I have over twenty now and the format is excellent.

Turtyturd

I think they did a really good job with the Fight Club transfer. Apparently Fincher was involved in every aspect in order to get things right and it shows.

I also got Batman Begins when I bought my Blu Ray player and was pleasently surprised by how good it looks. Have not had the chance to watch any animated movies on it yet but have watched a few episodes of the Clone Wars animated series and this really jumps off the screen (can only imagine Speed Racer).

On the other hand I also got I am Legend free and while Batman looks great this looks really bad and almost makes the CGI unbearable.

With Blu Ray movies coming down in price its a good time to start upgrading your collection but maybe only the essentials and not the sh*tty CGI laden movies.

P.S Has anyone bought Sin City on Blu Ray? Have two copies of the DVD (Normal and extended) and was wondering if anyone would rcommend upgrading....yes I am aware that it's CGI laden but its far from sh*tty.

Renn

Only one I was disappointed with was Run Lola Run (not sure as to why I even bothered to double dip on this one). Don't think this one is necessary to have on blu-ray. I'll pop it in to the player again some day to re-check but I remember the picture quality being a bit meh.

jaykhunter

I'd really not recommend double-dipping for blu-rays. Upscaled DVD looks really great. I'd only consider buying a blu-ray again if you really love the film, or it's a major blockbuster with sfx (Dark Knight, Star Trek etc)

Save your money for new releases! T2 looks great on Blu ray btw

Check out this site; DVD vs Blu-ray releases.......

http://www.highdefdigest.com/

thorbarry

I would deffo recommend picking up Blade Runner on Blu Ray. They have done a great job cleaning up a 25 year old movie

jaykhunter

jaykhunter wrote: »

I'd really not recommend double-dipping for blu-rays. Upscaled DVD looks really great. I'd only consider buying a blu-ray again if you really love the film, or it's a major blockbuster with sfx (Dark Knight, Star Trek etc)

Save your money for new releases! T2 looks great on Blu ray btw

Check out this site; DVD vs Blu-ray releases.......

http://www.highdefdigest.com/

DVD's upscaled can look great but a good Blu Ray transfer is miles ahead. For sound alone I'd be tempted to pick up some titles a second time. The difference between the DVD upscaled and Blu Ray of Zulu is obvious, there really is no comparison. Same goes for titles such as Stagecoach, Black Rain, Sanjuro, How the West Was Won

dvdbeaver is great for showing the differences between DVD and Blu as they will show side by side comparisons.

jaykhunter

Deleted User wrote: »

DVD's upscaled can look great but a good Blu Ray transfer is miles ahead. For sound alone I'd be tempted to pick up some titles a second time. The difference between the DVD upscaled and Blu Ray of Zulu is obvious, there really is no comparison. Same goes for titles such as Stagecoach, Black Rain, Sanjuro, How the West Was Won

dvdbeaver is great for showing the differences between DVD and Blu as they will show side by side comparisons.

Yeah, some transfers are amazing, some are crap (Ghostbusters, Dracula etc) ...it really comes down to if you're willing to plonk down more cash for a film you've already seen/have. I'm on a tight budget and have loads of DVDs so I only double-dip if I love the films.

btw I have the batman begins dvd and blu, ran 'em side by side on the 360 and PS3, and didn't see much difference in picture quality. Was very disappointed.

jaykhunter

jaykhunter wrote: »

Yeah, some transfers are amazing, some are crap (Ghostbusters, Dracula etc) ...it really comes down to if you're willing to plonk down more cash for a film you've already seen/have. I'm on a tight budget and have loads of DVDs so I only double-dip if I love the films.

I'm the same, I've only double dipped on a select few films. Dracula gets a lot of slack but the transfer was over seen by Coppola and is his preffered version.

jaykhunter

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm the same, I've only double dipped on a select few films. Dracula gets a lot of slack but the transfer was over seen by Coppola and is his preffered version.

LOL! then him and me are on two different wavelengths! Apparently Predator's getting a remastered blu-ray release, and Aliens box set coming out this Xmas. I'd consider double-dipping but i've watched them loads!

I'm sure everyone knows it but steer clear of 300 on Blu. Damn grain is intentional! Could say the same for grindhouse.....best to find that sucker on VHS

Faith+1

I'd say HEAT would kick ass on Blue-Ray!:cool:

Galvasean

jaykhunter wrote: »

Apparently Predator's getting a remastered blu-ray release,

It is? And I just bought it on BluRay, which I must say it looks very nice (a few establishing shots notwithstanding which dont seem to have been upscaled at all, but all the action bits are done very well)

Thoughts on the Gladiator BluRay people? Ive heard very mixed revews. My Dad tells me its great, but he's not very tech savvy.

I'm also thinking of picking up Transformers (first film) even though I have the DVD as I hear it's fantastic. Anyone got it?

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

It is? And I just bought it on BluRay, which I must say it looks very nice (a few establishing shots notwithstanding which dont seem to have been upscaled at all, but all the action bits are done very well)

Thoughts on the Gladiator BluRay people? Ive heard very mixed revews. My Dad tells me its great, but he's not very tech savvy.

I'm also thinking of picking up Transformers (first film) even though I have the DVD as I hear it's fantastic. Anyone got it?

The existing Blu Ray transfer for Predator is pretty average, there is obvious dirt and far too much grain in the image. It's not the worst but for such a big title you expect more. I've seen a few minutes of the new version and it looks gorgeous, a definite double dip for me.

Gladiator is rather poor, that they are planning on a remastered version to tie in with the Blu Ray release of RObin Hood really says a lot.

Get Transformers now, it looks absolutely gorgeous. I have it on DVD, HDDVD and Blu and the difference between the DVD and HD versions is jaw dropping. I've used it to convince numerous people to upgrade to Blu.

johnny_ultimate

I honestly don't feel the need to reinvest in any films I already own. There's only so much improvements can be made to older films IMO, so I stick with picking up newer stuff. I'll definitely buy a new release on Blu-Ray over DVD.

The major improvements I've seen in Blu-Ray are with animated films. Pixar stuff looks absolutely fantastic in high-def, plus the 16:9 ratio on Up makes it look even better on TVs. Persepolis is another one I was impressed by - it's only black and white, but the sharpness of the images was unreal. Actually, Optimum seem particularly good at Blu-Ray - Pan's Labyrinth has a superb transfer as well. There's only a few films I've been disappointed by in Blu-Ray, and yeah mostly with stuff that doesn't really need high-def in the first place. Synecdoche New York stands out as one which has a distressingly DVD-esque transfer, but then again I'm not sure a great transfer would have been worth the effort considering it's rather muted visually.

I don't have a good sound system yet (I mostly watch films late at night, when everyone else in my house would be freaking out over a surround sound system) so mostly I just am interested in image quality.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I honestly don't feel the need to reinvest in any films I already own. There's only so much improvements can be made to older films IMO, so I stick with picking up newer stuff. I'll definitely buy a new release on Blu-Ray over DVD.

I think that a lot of older films can actually look superior to many modern films, remember that 70mm & 35mm film stock has a far higher resolution than Blu Ray. There are numerous examples of great look Blu Rays of older films th Godfather transfers are superb, though Coppola's decision to brighten the films makes for a rather different viewing experience and one which I'm not exactly sure how much I like yet.

Stagecoach on Blu is one of the best examples of how much it can improve on existing sources, the DVD's have all been rather poor while the Blu Ray just looks fantastic. And I really can't get over just how amazing Zulu looks when compared to the DVD. It has to be seen to be believed.

Here's a screen shot of the R2 DVD of Zulu:


And here is the same scren shot taken from the Blu Ray:


For more screens comparing the various release click here.

congo_90

Would blu ray of already released films not be like taking a picture in 2 mp and then saving it as 4 mp? e.g 'enhanced' but pretty much the same or were dvd's scaled down from what the original recording was and we've been held out on for 8 years?

As for me I think new releases in blu ray sound good. The only blu ray device is this laptop i'm typing on which isn't even in my house! Ah well dvd + 12 year old dolby surround sound and a 42" crt ftw.... for now

johnny_ultimate

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that a lot of older films can actually look superior to many modern films, remember that 70mm & 35mm film stock has a far higher resolution than Blu Ray. There are numerous examples of great look Blu Rays of older films th Godfather transfers are superb, though Coppola's decision to brighten the films makes for a rather different viewing experience and one which I'm not exactly sure how much I like yet.

Those shots look nice alright, and I'm not denying that there is going to be a significant improvement in transfer quality. I think my major problem is that a lot of these films are in 2.35:1 ratio in the first place (as are most new films too) which means there's only so much improvement you can have on a TV. Don't get me wrong, I strongly object to altering the image to different aspect ratios, but the way modern TVs are they aren't the best for displaying these kinds of images. Black bars are an unfortunate necessity in these days of 16:9 For me, watching Up in 16:9 full HD was extremely impressive, but seeing older films in 2.35 on a 16:9 screen doesn't have the same wow factor.

In terms of picture quality, sound, colour etc.. the improvements are fantastic, and Blu-Ray clearly is the best way to view films at home. But for me, the only way to truly see films as they were meant to be seen is in the cinema. Until someone decides 2.35 is the new standard television ratio

Saying all that, I'm still very pro restoring films for DVD and Blu-Ray. It might not be the perfect situation, but home viewing is the easiest way to experience most film these days, especially in terms of classics. I'm glad people like Criterion are doing such a good job. For me, though, I'm not interested enough to double dip films for what can sometimes be a minor improvement. If my favourites do end up receiving stunning Blu-Ray transfers, I will gladly reconsider!

Bob the Seducer

congo_90 wrote: »

Would blu ray of already released films not be like taking a picture in 2 mp and then saving it as 4 mp? e.g 'enhanced' but pretty much the same or were dvd's scaled down from what the original recording was and we've been held out on for 8 years?

Not really, from memory the film that most movies were shot on (35mm) is about 4 times the resolution of current 1080p high definition so there's another generation or two of upgrading before we hit the limits of the original media.

Of course, the Japanese have been playing around with Super Hi-Vision for the last few years, it's nowhere near hitting the consumer market but it does have a resolution somewhere around 16 times that of current high definition. Something to look forward to in another decade or so! :pac:

jaykhunter

Bob the Seducer wrote: »

Not really, from memory the film that most movies were shot on (35mm) is about 4 times the resolution of current 1080p high definition so there's another generation or two of upgrading before we hit the limits of the original media.

cool; i have two questions; how come some blu-ray transfers look like crap (if the res of the source 35mm is above 1080p) eg Dracula; and what resolution are blockbuster films (like Star Trek 2009) shooting at now?

Bob the Seducer

jaykhunter wrote: »

cool; i have two questions; how come some blu-ray transfers look like crap (if the res of the source 35mm is above 1080p) eg Dracula; and what resolution are blockbuster films (like Star Trek 2009) shooting at now?

In an ideal world you have access to the original shot 35mm film. That should be the case for most big films, for many others however, you may only have access to a theatrical print. The resolution of theatrical is a fair bit lower than the original and there's even variations between individual theatrical prints depending on the manufacturing and processing used. The more obscure a film is, the less choice you're likely to have with regard to source material.

The amount of care taken in restoration and transfer can also have a huge bearing on what the end product blu ray looks like. Often, the more money a studio is likely to make from a high def release, the more time and effort they put into polishing it up and getting the transfer right.

Over the past decade more and more films have been shot on digital rather than 35mm. To my knowledge there are at least five different digital resolutions between 2k and 6k being used. I've been told Slumdog Millionaire was shot at 2k using one of these cameras. The resolution of films shot on digital will vary greatly depending on the equipment used, but, the starting point is generally at or above standard hd.

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

On the other hand there are numerous great titles which have an obvious jump in quality in the transition from DVD to Blu Ray, Sunshine is simply an awe-inspiring release, with perhaps the greatest sound mix of any film ever released and is worth upgrading for that alone. The picture quality is also superb.

Fo sho! I spent weeks hunting for sunshine on blu ray, checked in the local hmv daily out of boredom for weeks on lunch breaks and they never had it

Went to town and picked it up in hmv grafton street last week for €24, next day went into local hmv again out of boredom and they had it for €13.99

Gimme a break lord!

I havent got many in my blu ray collection at the moment, but those that have made a visual jaw drop experience were Blade runner, Black hawk down and Inglorious basterds. I couldnt get over how well blade runner looked, given how old it is, Scott really done a great job!

bonerm

My system for double-dipping is to only update a DVD to BD if:

1) I've already actually made a mental note or have a general compunction to watch the movie again
2) I've fully used up the DVD (which for me means watching movie (ie the actual copy on the disk) 2x times at least and having watched all the extras on the disk at least once).

Otherwise you're just buying disks for no other reason than to be a good little consumer and to have a nice blue plastic line spanning across your shelf.

In terms of quality I haven't seen a BD that wasn't at least superior in picture to its DVD equivalent, so if upgrading just for the sake of it is your main concern then I'd go BD across the board. I'm more of a time conscious person and would only start buying disk because I'm actually going to sit down and watch them from "cover to cover" so to speak and not just to have the best quality version of every single movie I own.

MagicMarker

How does watching a digial BR copy compare to a BR disc?

For instance, if I'm watching a movie in 1080P, hooked up to my HDTV via HDMI from a laptop, it looks pretty freaking awesome tbh, and I can't see there being too much of an improvement if I were to buy an actual BR Player.

Any thoughts?

Anakin.S

Galvasean wrote: »

It is? And I just bought it on BluRay, which I must say it looks very nice (a few establishing shots notwithstanding which dont seem to have been upscaled at all, but all the action bits are done very well)

Thoughts on the Gladiator BluRay people? Ive heard very mixed revews. My Dad tells me its great, but he's not very tech savvy.

I'm also thinking of picking up Transformers (first film) even though I have the DVD as I hear it's fantastic. Anyone got it?

Transformers is good. I only have it Blu-ray but with the natural upgrading on the blu ray player i'm not sure it would be worth buying twice.

Matrix is not a good upgrade to get, the special effects really show, especially Neo's mouth

G-Money

Sometimes I don't always see a huge difference on a film in Blu. However I recently bought 3 Star Trek films that had been re-released on Blu and I already had them on DVD. I put both of them on at the same time and flicked between the two and I could see a significant difference in picture quality, with the Blu-Ray version being clearer with more detail.

However I think they'd spent some time and effort to make it better, rather than just doing a boring transfer. I also have the original Superman film on Blu-ray and while it looks ok, I think Blu-ray is a hindrance as you can see stuff like wires during the flying scenes which I don't think appeared in the standard DVD version.

I have to admit the best Blu-Rays for picture quality that I have are Wrestlemania Blu-ray DVD's. The shows are filmed in HD and they don't seem to add in graining etc like a lot of films do which in some cases take away from the clarity that Blu-ray provides.

I also have T2 on Blu-ray, the more recently Blu-ray release. I can't remember but the pic quality is decent enough. I think they released a Blu-ray version a year or two ago and it was pretty bad from the reports I've read.

I currently have Sin City and 300 on Blu but I haven't watched them yet. At some point I intend to upgrade my TV, it's currently a Sony Bravia 32" LCD and I want something around 40".

I also have 2001 on Blu-ray. The picture quality is good but the film put me to sleep completely. Am thinking about flogging it to someone

Renn

I'd probably grab that off you tbh.

krudler

Sin City is great looking on Blu, out of the movies I have tht I'd call demo worthy, Speed Racer tops them all, simply put it looks absolutely stunning on BR, its like a living cartoon, the colours just jump off the screen, the sound mix is fantastic, some screenshots shere:

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/592_5_large.jpg

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/592_4_large.jpg

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/592_9_large.jpg

Star Trek (2009) is another amazing looking movie, as is The Dark Knight, especially the IMAX scenes,and of course any of the Pixar movies, like Up, Wall-E and Monsters Inc (when is Finding Nemo coming out ffs)

Galvasean

nix wrote: »

I couldnt get over how well blade runner looked, given how old it is, Scott really done a great job!

AW rap, don't tell me I'll have to buy ANOTHER version of that film! :pac:

Necronomicon

I haven't re-purchased too many.

I only got into Pixar stuff after I got a Blu-ray player thankfully - because I would have double dipped on all of them, they look amazing (hurry the **** up with Nemo and The Incredibles Disney!).

I re-bought Pitch Black on Blu-ray and found it very disappointing. The night shots (i.e., all of it were very grainy).

tman

I've bought and rented quite a few titles that I've already seen, it's amazing how utterly pointless some of them are thanks to a poor transfer and seemingly nothing done to improve the picture (commando, highlander, oldboy). Then on the other hand you get films that scrub up so nicely that on occasion I've found myself sitting there with my mouth agape (Bladerunner)

Don't think I'll ever double dip again without checking out a review first of all, in fact I doubt I'd even rent something I fancy seeing again without seeing if it's worth it...

jaykhunter

So it's more a factor of old films IF they're working off the original 35/70MM print or a theatrical/lower res print for the blu-ray release. And if they remaster/clean up the print or just leave it as-is.

It annoys me to think that Godfather was shot in "super high def" but the blu-rays (which I own) look pretty crap. If someone asked me to put on a Blu-ray to tout it's merits I'd hide that boxset.

Any idea what resolution the big blockbuster films are shooting in now? eg Like 8,000 resolution?

Is it a big plus that shooting films digitally instead of film; there's no film grain/degradation?