Should I upgrade my DVD to Blu...

jaykhunter

jaykhunter wrote: »

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?

I like the Godfather Blu Rays, the level of clarity is great and while the tweaks to the image aren't what I was expecting they do make for a rather different viewing experience.

What most people seem to forget when it comes to Blu Ray is that a lot of times it's not the source print which determines the quality but rather how much time and effort is put into restoring it. A lot of Blu Ray is similar to the early days of DVD when many companies were simply putting VHS onto DVD and trying to pass it off.

jaykhunter

Do u know (on average for block-busters) how much of the space on a blu-ray is being used for the main film?

TerrorFirmer

Very impressed by the Zulu screens. Had been meaning to watch it again and now it's definitely a priority. I found personally that Lord of the Rings on Blu-Ray was incredibly disappointing picture is average, considerable grain - looks no better than an upscaled DVD, at best. Watched Battlestar: The Plan, which was quite good, but most other Blu-Rays I've watched were fairly low-key releases.

Voodu Child

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I found personally that Lord of the Rings on Blu-Ray was incredibly disappointing picture is average, considerable grain -

The grain is supposed to be there, its due to the structure/texture of the film it was shot on.

Actually, I am of the complete opposite opinion, I think the LOTR trilogy on Bluray has too little grain. They ran parts of it through noise reduction to reduce the appearance of grain (:rolleyes:), and in doing so lost a lot of the fine detail in some shots.

TerrorFirmer

Voodu Child wrote: »

The grain is supposed to be there, its due to the structure/texture of the film it was shot on.

Actually, I am of the complete opposite opinion, I think the LOTR trilogy on Bluray has too little grain. They ran parts of it through noise reduction to reduce the appearance of grain (:rolleyes:), and in doing so lost a lot of the fine detail in some shots.

Well, whatever the technicalities, the fundamental point was that there's little incentive to upgrade from DVD to Blu-Ray in this instance.

rednik

Deleted User wrote: »

I like the Godfather Blu Rays, the level of clarity is great and while the tweaks to the image aren't what I was expecting they do make for a rather different viewing experience.

What most people seem to forget when it comes to Blu Ray is that a lot of times it's not the source print which determines the quality but rather how much time and effort is put into restoring it. A lot of Blu Ray is similar to the early days of DVD when many companies were simply putting VHS onto DVD and trying to pass it off.

I agree. The Godfather and Godfather II look very well and just like they did in the cinema which is what Coppola wanted. Sure there is grain but if DNR is done badly the film will lose a lot of detail. At the other end of the scale look at what Friedkin did to the French Connection.

Now I hope Coppola can get Apocalypse Now right and release both TE and Redux to satisfy everybody.

expectationlost

any good free blu ray playing software ,recently upgraded to windows 7

krudler

Voodu Child wrote: »

The grain is supposed to be there, its due to the structure/texture of the film it was shot on.

Actually, I am of the complete opposite opinion, I think the LOTR trilogy on Bluray has too little grain. They ran parts of it through noise reduction to reduce the appearance of grain (:rolleyes:), and in doing so lost a lot of the fine detail in some shots.

I love film grain, its supposed to look like that, otherwise everything would look sterile and fake, like the entire Star Wars prequel trilogy. Have you seen Episode 3 upscaled? good god it looks horrendous in places, if anyone has the dvd watch the scene where Anakin and Obi Wan confront each other on the landing platform just before the big duel, you can actually see the blue hue around them from the bluescreen they used, really crappy compositing onto cgi backgrounds.

tman

Anakin.S wrote: »

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

That's a shame... Watched it on DVD the other day and a few scenes really felt like they would have been great in HD. (the lobby scene in particular)

After reading the HD digest review of it I think I might still pick it up at some point tbh... Doesn't sound as bad as you're making out (the scene with Neo's mouth closing looks terrible in standard def anyway imo)

G-Money

krudler wrote: »

I love film grain, its supposed to look like that, otherwise everything would look sterile and fake, like the entire Star Wars prequel trilogy. Have you seen Episode 3 upscaled? good god it looks horrendous in places, if anyone has the dvd watch the scene where Anakin and Obi Wan confront each other on the landing platform just before the big duel, you can actually see the blue hue around them from the bluescreen they used, really crappy compositing onto cgi backgrounds.

The last time I watched Episode 3 it was just on a normal DVD player. I though the CG looked very OTT and took away from the film. I think they'll have their work cut out to get that looking well on Blu.

krudler

tman wrote: »

That's a shame... Watched it on DVD the other day and a few scenes really felt like they would have been great in HD. (the lobby scene in particular)

After reading the HD digest review of it I think I might still pick it up at some point tbh... Doesn't sound as bad as you're making out (the scene with Neo's mouth closing looks terrible in standard def anyway imo)

I didnt think the transfer of The Matrix was bad at all, theres some great detail in the shots you didnt see before, even the matrix code itself at the beginning looks razor sharp. Theres a few cgi bits that look a bit naff but its 11 years old now (christ!:eek:)

rednik

rednik wrote: »

. At the other end of the scale look at what Friedkin did to the French Connection.

Friedkin destroyed the film with his Blu Ray version, even the film's cinematography Owen Roizman hated the release, "I wasn't consulted. I was appalled by it. I don't know what Billy was thinking. It's not the film that I shot, and I certainly want to wash my hands of having had anything to do with this transfer, which I feel is atrocious."

G-Money

Band of Brothers on Blu-ray, whats the verdict?

TherapyBoy

grandmaster wrote: »

Band of Brothers on Blu-ray, whats the verdict?

Excellent. The DVD version is pretty good too.

Galvasean

grandmaster wrote: »

The last time I watched Episode 3 it was just on a normal DVD player. I though the CG looked very OTT and took away from the film. I think they'll have their work cut out to get that looking well on Blu.

I find with Episodes 2 and 3 the CGI stands out liek a sore thumb. If anything the BluRay will probably make it moreso.

Anakin.S

tman wrote: »

That's a shame... Watched it on DVD the other day and a few scenes really felt like they would have been great in HD. (the lobby scene in particular)

After reading the HD digest review of it I think I might still pick it up at some point tbh... Doesn't sound as bad as you're making out (the scene with Neo's mouth closing looks terrible in standard def anyway imo)

Fair enough I didn't think it was worth the upgrade from my original, but everyone to their own

Band of Brothers is fantastic on Blu-ray as Bizarre-Ink said

squire23

Have to say I was absolutely stunned recently by the Leon bluray. The quality of the transfer was just truely amazing. Definitely recommend it to anyone thinking of double-dipping (or triple-dipping like me!)

Galvasean

I'm considering Leon since its also the director's cut. Plus its not too expensive at the moment.

rednik

I bought the US version from Axel and it is a very good transfer of a great film. I got Road to Perdition during the week but have yet to watch it. For western lovers Silverado is very good, Tombstone not so good, great sound but the picture is very inconsistent.

squire23

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm considering Leon since its also the director's cut. Plus its not too expensive at the moment.

It's actually got both the Original Theatrical version & the International Version on it. Not being an ass, but I agree with Besson when he says that the Theatrical version is the Director's Cut - it's a much better paced & tighter film. The International Version has an additional 25mins which can at times make the film feel like it's dragging.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm considering Leon since its also the director's cut. Plus its not too expensive at the moment.

Get it, the transfer is rather good though the sound mix is lacking. The theatrical cut is the better version, the added footage really isnt necessary.

G-Money

I'm wondering should we start a Blu-Ray Recommendation type thread on here. Basically where people can give their recommendations for good and bad Blu-Ray discs.

I know myself that when something comes out on Blu-Ray I have this automatic assumption that the picture quality is going to blow me away, and sometimes it doesn't seem much better than a normal DVD.

Also, what size of TV are people watching their Blu's on? I've a Sony 32" Bravia LCD 1080p television and while I like it, I'm really thinking about upgrading to a 40". A mate of mine has a Samsung TV which is bigger than mine and when we watched Wrestlemania 24 on Blu-ray on his TV, it looked far better than it did on mine. He says his TV is less than 40" but I can't see how it would be. It's much bigger than my Sony.

Galvasean

grandmaster wrote: »

I'm wondering should we start a Blu-Ray Recommendation type thread on here. Basically where people can give their recommendations for good and bad Blu-Ray discs.

Well that's pretty much what this thread has become.

grandmaster wrote:

Also, what size of TV are people watching their Blu's on? I've a Sony 32" Bravia LCD 1080p television and while I like it, I'm really thinking about upgrading to a 40". A mate of mine has a Samsung TV which is bigger than mine and when we watched Wrestlemania 24 on Blu-ray on his TV, it looked far better than it did on mine. He says his TV is less than 40" but I can't see how it would be. It's much bigger than my Sony.

It could be a 37". That's what I've got.

Picked up Heat and Gran Torino for my Dad for Father's Day. The reviews are pretty good. Anyone here watched them on BluRay yet?

jaykhunter

Ya, i think we should make a new Blu-ray thread and make it official.

Official Great/Bad Blu-Ray Transfers thread or something...If we could have the OP updating the first post with the list of good and bad transfers would be really helpful.

I have a 50" plasma in my tiny apt; blu rays in general look stunning; especially since i'm Chorus NTL and they only do standard def i think it's a case of the bigger, the more obvious the difference between HD and SD. Like I can see it on my friends 28" but it's not a huge difference.

Maybe just leave this one going as we've all ready seen opinions differ over releases with some thinking it's a poor disc and others feeling different.

I watch them on a 40" Sony Bravia and watching Transformers on it is just a religious experience. Watched Storm Warning and Sorority Row on Blu on it last night and they looked absolutely stunning, the depth in the picture in Storm Warning was superb.

Galvasean

jaykhunter wrote: »

Official Great/Bad Blu-Ray Transfers thread or something...If we could have the OP updating the first post with the list of good and bad transfers would be really helpful.
.

I'd be wary of such a list since what makes a god transfer is open to interpretation. For example some people say the 300 BluRay transfer is awful as there is too much grain. Others believethe grain is intentional and fits with the style of the film.

Renn

So Boogie Nights is out on blu-ray today but I'm not sure whether to get the UK release one or try and look for a region free US copy. Can anyone confirm if the aspect ratio of the UK release is 1.78:1 (as opposed to the original 2.40:1 ratio)?

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd be wary of such a list since what makes a god transfer is open to interpretation. For example some people say the 300 BluRay transfer is awful as there is too much grain. Others believethe grain is intentional and fits with the style of the film.

This I've never understood, its clearly a stylistic choice to make the movie look rough, like the pages of a graphic novel, its all digital post production and saturation not crappy film stock. The Hd whores who demand everything by crystal clear with no blemishes annoy me, grain is part of film, simple as. If something is shot digitally and intended to look crystal clear then fair enough, older movies it doesnt bother me at all, grain and bad transfers arent the same thing, when you see something that has loads of artefacting or in the wrong aspect or something thats a pain, but film grain doesnt bother me at all. I think it adds to the movie, I'd be disappointed for old movies to be missing the popping noise and scratches on the print, thats the way you're supposed to watch them.:)

Mackman

T2 looks pretty good on Blu-ray. I bought apollo 13 the other day, still have to watch it.

Anyone seen Die Hard on BR? (if its even released, i think it is)

foxyboxer

Mackman wrote: »

Anyone seen Die Hard on BR? (if its even released, i think it is)

Not perfect but at circa 15 euro not a bad buy. Sound is good.