• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

BR Picture Quality??

Film has grain. Directors sometimes choose grainier film to get the look and feel they want for their movie. Sure, some of it could be cleaned up during the BR transfer but then you're getting away from the artistic vision. My suggestion - assume that the movie looks exactly how the director intended it to and brag about it: "Look hon, notice how you can see every little spec of grain? That's awesome!"
 
Another factor is the time and money that the studio is willing to spend on the transfer. It's not a simple/push button process.
 
Last night we watched, don't laugh, The Lost World, Jurassic Park and the PQ was GOD awful. It was really horrible.

I wanted to start this post to see if there is a general consensus out there about this.

I did read on a Blu Ray review of Gladiator, that the first release was awful and they actually remastered it.

Looking forward to some input on this?
 
Towen7 said:
Another factor is the time and money that the studio is willing to spend on the transfer. It's not a simple/push button process.
Click to expand...
^^
THIS!!
When BARAKA was transfered they spent mucho dinero and it shows. Even movies shot with digital cameras can exhibit 'grain' if the director chooses. Money Ball was shot digitally along with Avatar and others, but they're few and far between.
Master and Commander Far Side of the Squirrel BD transfer looks exactly like it's DVD predecessor IMO.

Rope
 
It's a crap shoot, largely for the reasons Chuck and Tom cited. Sometimes you get eye (and ear) candy, sometimes you don't.
 
So this really is a big deal when making a decision to double dip or not???
 
heeman said:
So this really is a big deal when making a decision to double dip or not???
Click to expand...

In the vast majority of cases, don't double dip. I did with Master and Commander, got my ass handed to me on a plate.

Rope
 
Rope said:
In the vast majority of cases, don't double dip. I did with Master and Commander, got my ass handed to me on a plate.
Click to expand...
I think that particular movie is an extreme and rare example. Besides, it's only the audio that was somewhat of a letdown. The video is leaps and bounds better on BD than DVD.
 
I see very little increase in video quality in the BD transfer of M&C.

Rope
 
Rope, I compared DVD and BD of it in same player, on same screen and I would agree with you on that. There are other releases with bigger differences between DVD and BD so they do exist.
 
DIYer said:
There are other releases with bigger differences between DVD and BD so they do exist.
Click to expand...
^ This was never in question.

Something to consider though is display size. The difference between 480p and 1080p on a 42" or 50" TV is negligible. Try it on an 80" display and I think you'll find the improvement much more noticeable.
 
It all depends on the film. Some low budget Asian movies look worse on BD, because you can see all of the wires they use to do their stunts without really gaining a lot of crispness in the rest of the picture. Not all movies are worth the upgrade. Ghost Busters was a total waste on Blu-Ray.
 
Zing said:
Something to consider though is display size. The difference between 480p and 1080p on a 42" or 50" TV is negligible.
Click to expand...
That depends on the movie. Some are very noticeable.
Try it on an 80" display and I think you'll find the improvement much more noticeable.
Click to expand...
Per THX site's screen size choosing method, 80" screen would be for sitting further away than 42" or 50". In that situation, the bigger screen would appear the same at the recommended viewing distance as 42" or 50", I suppose. :think:
 
Haywood said:
Some low budget Asian movies look worse on BD, because you can see all of the wires they use to do their stunts
Click to expand...
You mean those martial arts movies?
 
Zing makes an excellent point regarding screen size. Also the equipments ability to up convert (interpolate) lower resolution media (DVD) to meet the displays requirements.

Rope
 
I sit about 10 feet away from a 67 inch 1080p display. I can definitely tell the difference between 480, 720 and 1080. Standard definition honestly doesn't look all that great on a screen this size. DVD is barely acceptable. 720p looks a ton better. I have no trouble at all watching movies at that resolution. 1080 looks better, but the jump doesn't seem nearly as big to me.
 
The remastered Jaws on Bluray is waaaaaay better than the DVD version. Universal recently had their top 100 movies remastered and went over frame by frame to correct any errors then released those 100 movies on Blu. I've got about five of them Jaws and To Kill a Mockingbird being a couple of them and the remastering is first rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top