"Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray?"

[Timmythekid]

Re: "Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray"

can't just take the DVD rips and copy them over and the source material may not be better than that as far as resolution goes -- without doing a full restoration and transfer of a film print. Depending on the film you're talking about, that may not be cost-effective. Sure, huge classics like Casablanca make sense to transfer...

Or for another totally, completely, and in all other ways purely hypothetical example, you can't just take a 10 year old 1080p scan of a neg intended for DVD, throw it onto BD and expect it will really make the most of the format. You need to do a modern, 2k, prefferably 4k scan to really make stuff shine.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: "Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray"

Or for another totally, completely, and in all other ways purely hypothetical example, you can't just take a 10 year old 1080p scan of a neg intended for DVD, throw it onto BD and expect it will really make the most of the format. You need to do a modern, 2k, prefferably 4k scan to really make stuff shine.

Right, which means you have to go back and do it all over again, which isn't cost effective for every film out there. For some, sure. Even ones that don't get that treatment. But for others, why would you bother? Plus, in some cases, I'd bet the original film is damaged and would require restoration in addition to JUST scanning.

So, who here is ready to spring for a 4K scan of, say, Corvette Summer or Never Too Young to Die or Gymkata? Ok, other from me on those last two.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I took the comment as things that wasn't visible in lesser quality medias would suddenly be visible and plain as day, like gaffer tape all over Star Wars and movies with crappy looking sets that you didn't notice looked crappy before. The over appliance of make-up and all those sorts of things, done specifically with that in mind that they wouldn't be seen aas clearly in the theater or on TV... but will now with Blu-Ray and high-definition.

 

[wannab]

I took the comment as things that wasn't visible in lesser quality medias would suddenly be visible and plain as day, like gaffer tape all over Star Wars and movies with crappy looking sets that you didn't notice looked crappy before. The over appliance of make-up and all those sorts of things, done specifically with that in mind that they wouldn't be seen aas clearly in the theater or on TV... but will now with Blu-Ray and high-definition.

On that note, I'm kinda worried that, in LoA, A. Quinn and A. Guinness' nose appliances will be too distracting -- but I'll take the risk.



Doug

 

[Solo4114]

I took the comment as things that wasn't visible in lesser quality medias would suddenly be visible and plain as day, like gaffer tape all over Star Wars and movies with crappy looking sets that you didn't notice looked crappy before. The over appliance of make-up and all those sorts of things, done specifically with that in mind that they wouldn't be seen aas clearly in the theater or on TV... but will now with Blu-Ray and high-definition.

I don't think that'd be an issue. I think that's a fallacy about home media being a translation of the cinema experience.

Film stock itself is, as I understand it, quite high resolution. It has to be, given the size of the screen itself. So, those imperfections would've been plainly visible (or not) on the big screen.

I can see where, perhaps, TV shows from yesteryear would suffer in that regard, but films? Less of an issue, I'd expect. IF you go back to the original film stock for your conversion.

Now, what films DON'T let you do that you CAN do at home is frame-by-frame stuff, pausing, etc, so when you're watching your DVD of, say, True Blood, and you pause it, you can see that Anna Paquin has godawful skin. If you watch the scenes in motion, though, it's a lot less noticeable.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Film stock itself is, as I understand it, quite high resolution. It has to be, given the size of the screen itself. So, those imperfections would've been plainly visible (or not) on the big screen.

Certainly not on the screens here in DK and I doubt in the US or anywhere else either. What amount is it that is actually reflected back from the screen? 70 or 80 percent of the image quality?

Watched the same movie in digital and then in analog in the cinema last year and it was a world apart. The analog was just fussy and not as clear - a whole lot softer.

 

[Dpp1978]

I don't think that'd be an issue. I think that's a fallacy about home media being a translation of the cinema experience.

Film stock itself is, as I understand it, quite high resolution. It has to be, given the size of the screen itself. So, those imperfections would've been plainly visible (or not) on the big screen.

The negative will potentially be high resolution, but due to the nature of analogue replication every step away from the negative you go you lose resolution.

By the time you get to the release print you have gone (typically) from negative to inter-positive; from inter-positive to inter-negative; from inter-negative to release print.

You are three generations removed from the negative and the reduction in detail will be very significant. You then use a projector, which is basically late Victorian technology and which introduces gate weave and other artefacts to the mix, to focus light onto a screen shone through the film.

Even the very best projection lens will have minor imperfections which will slightly degrade the quality further.

By the time we see it on the big screen we are seeing a fraction of the detail captured by the camera. Studies have shown that even using the best print replication processes and the most superbly engineered and maintained projection equipment, (which is not what your local multiplex would have been running) you are getting between 500 and 800 lines of vertical resolution on the cinema screen.

It is very likely, at least as far a spatial resolution is concerned, that your average Blu-ray will out perform a 35mm print of the same movie.

With that in mind it is not surprising that things which wouldn't have shown up on screen at the cinema are readily noticeable on a good HD video file. That is why when films are mastered for a HD release now, the earliest generation, good quality materials are used.

That said resolution is only one criterion by which image quality should be judged; and not the most important at that.

A really good film based presentation is still (in my opinion) the gold standard by which all others should be measured. It is a shame that outside of a very few specialist cinemas good film presentations are all but unheard of. That is why I am a big fan of digital projection for mainstream film distribution.

 

[Solo4114]

Certainly not on the screens here in DK and I doubt in the US or anywhere else either. What amount is it that is actually reflected back from the screen? 70 or 80 percent of the image quality?

Watched the same movie in digital and then in analog in the cinema last year and it was a world apart. The analog was just fussy and not as clear - a whole lot softer.

Well, I actually don't think "softer" is necessarily "worse." If you mean there's a certain amount of blur, I don't see that as entirely a bad thing, especially if we're talking about older films. I don't expect to be able to pick out Robert Mitchum's pores if I watch The Longest Day. I'm ok with film grain too. I hold older films to a different standard than the ultra-crisp images of modern films.

As long as the image doesn't look TOO blurry for its appropriate "era" I'd just figure "well, film was different then" and leave it at that. I realize I'm in an extreme minority here, but then again, even being willing to watch a B&W film puts you in an extreme minority anymore...

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Any movie I've seen in the cinema was softer than even the VHS picture I got when I viewed it at home. Maybe that's an issue with Danish cinema screens, I don't know, but a HUGE amount of detail is lost in the cinema viewing compared to even previous home video releases or TV broadcasts. HD is just presenting the whole thing + all we didn't realize was there.

I have several B&W and older movies in my library. I find them more entertaining because they aren't ADHD.

 

[PHArchivist]

I took the comment as things that wasn't visible in lesser quality medias would suddenly be visible and plain as day, like gaffer tape all over Star Wars and movies with crappy looking sets that you didn't notice looked crappy before. The over appliance of make-up and all those sorts of things, done specifically with that in mind that they wouldn't be seen aas clearly in the theater or on TV... but will now with Blu-Ray and high-definition.

How about the squibs taped to the bathroom stall doors in True Lies...?

 

[PHArchivist]

Regarding the (fascinating) discussion of resoution and media types, I find it historically intriguing how back in the 80's and 90's the art of home theater design was all about reaching the pinacle of replicating the theater experience.

I think we did that in just abut 1998 with the advent of DVD...

Blu-ray image quality and the related audio formats I think well exceed the theater experience.

 

[robn1]

...Watched the same movie in digital and then in analog in the cinema last year and it was a world apart. The analog was just fussy and not as clear - a whole lot softer.

That's because every film goes through a digital stage. Digital projection is fine, but film prints are made from the digital masters and lose quality. This wasn't the case in the pre digital days. A good film print in a quality theater could look incredible.

 

[Dpp1978]

That's because every film goes through a digital stage. Digital projection is fine, but film prints are made from the digital masters and lose quality. This wasn't the case in the pre digital days. A good film print in a quality theater could look incredible.

It should be exactly the opposite.

By going from negative to digital, and from digital to printing negative you are essentially removing two generations of loss from the process. A digitally derived film print should by rights be better than one made entirely photochemically.

Unfortunately the need for thousands of prints for opening night led to shortcuts being made and poor prints, which would otherwise have been rejected, getting sent out.

I've sat through shockingly bad prints where the colour shifted between reels.

Digital projection is a boon for those who only go to a multiplex as the quality is much better than a typical release print.

 

[niennumb1]

La Bamba
They Live
Kingpin
Mulan

That's all I can think of at 12:40am, hahaha

 

[oujala]

...so when you're watching your DVD of, say, True Blood, and you pause it, you can see that Anna Paquin has godawful skin..

Please...tell us more...:lol

Just kidding.

Lawrence of Arabia would be a nice release.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

How about the squibs taped to the bathroom stall doors in True Lies...?

Can't comment on things I haven't seen. I certainly didn't notice them in the theater or on VHS or when it was showing on TV stations.

That's because every film goes through a digital stage. Digital projection is fine, but film prints are made from the digital masters and lose quality. This wasn't the case in the pre digital days. A good film print in a quality theater could look incredible.

Then we do not have good film prints in quality theaters in the two cities in Denmark I have watched movies in. ALWAYS softer, less defined and nowhere near Blu-Ray quality... or even DVD quality or even VHS quality in terms of sharpness and visible detail.

 

[deadbolt]

The Manhattan Project (film), and Sitting Target would be awesome to see nicely transferred to blu-ray.

Those would likely turn out to be two very useful blu-rays! :love

:facepalm Edit: But of course the Original cut of the classic Star Wars trilogy first! :lol


-Carson