Status on Blu-Ray?

[rcarlberg]

My eyes tell me a totally different story. I have a number of silent films from the 1920s on Blu-ray that are better than the DVD versions. Some are absolutely stunning.

Doubtless due to better transfers -- not the additional capacity.

[JKL2000]

Well of course the high-definition video is only as good as the master. Jaws (1975) is a 2.35:1 anamorphic Panavision shot with Arriflex 35-III cameras. The Godfather (1972) is 1.85:1 spherical format shot with Mitchell BNCR cameras (don't be impressed, I had to look up the details).

Get out of here - there's NO WAY The Godfather was shot on a Mitchell BNCR. Check your facts.

Just kidding - I just wanted to scare you. You could say it was shot on a Cumonawannalaya 3000 and I'd believe it.

Just for the record - I have no intention of upgrading from DVDs to BRs for anything, unless there are some important content differences. My OP was really just to ascertain the % of new releases that are coming out in the BR format. So far, Ken's comments were the most enlightening - that music DVDs AND BRs may go the way of the Dodo.

BTW, I only have a couple of DVDs that aren't region 0 or region 1. Not enough that it's really a factor.

[rcarlberg]

Doubtless due to better transfers -- not the additional capacity.

Ah hell, I could be wrong here.

Additional resolution will make the copy sharper and clearer than lesser resolution -- regardless of how the original was filmed. I mean, you're not going to get any additional detail than what was in the original film, and at some point you're going to be limited by the "grain" of the film... but on a good 35mm print (which goes back to the silent days) the grain is still a ways below the threshhold of 1920x1080, isn't it? Maybe? Need a film expert here (I ain't one -- obviously...)

[trurl]

Read my sig file.

Ah.. OK *lol* I thought you were hard-core analog. Anyway, I would like to make an argument for Blu-ray, and I think there are many. Color depth, lack of ringing, less artifacting from compression- many things beyond resolution that should be apparent on a good HDTV larger than 40"- heck some obvious on a standard def CRT imho. It's my observation though (and I'm not pointing a finger at you) that there seems to be an inverse proportion between being lunatic fringe about audio and having the same interest, or ability to see, improvements in video for many people.

I used to run a front projector- modest, just 720P DLP but a decent projector- and 90% of DVD was as unwatchable as VHS at that size (about 120"). But I started with a 36" CRT and ringing and edge enhancement were always a problem with DVD. DVD authoring is better now, but Blu-ray trumps it every disk I[ve ever seen, practically. Try A/Bing a Technicolor disk like Wizard of Oz, or Robin Hood for movies made in the 30s that clearly and drmatcially improve (again, imo). And black and white- forget about it. B&W kills the DVD MPEG compression. The only reason a B&W Blu-ray wouldn't smoke a DVD is if it's made from a DVD master with excessive noise reduction.

Anyway, that's my rant for now

edit- added "B&W" in end of 2nd paragraph

[nosebone]

What he ^ said.

[rcarlberg]

LOL. There are debates about film vs video which are exactly analogous (how's that for irony?) to the digital vs analog sound recording discussion.

In the example given on this website they talk about "adding grain" (i.e. distortion) to make video look more like film. This is exactly the same as recording engineers adding hiss to make digital productions sound more like analog recordings.

LOL. To each his own.

[philsunset]

Doubtless due to better transfers -- not the additional capacity.

These are BLU/DVD combo releases.

[JKL2000]

DVD is warmer than Blu-Ray.

[trurl]

DVD is warmer than Blu-Ray.

VHS is warmer than both of them!

Actually, in terms of audio, I guess it is.

[rcarlberg]

Just to continue to beat this deceased equine:

The recent crop of movies do look like TV shows. The video "look" is because most features are now shot digitally rather than filmed. So the reason why most films look like video is because that is what they are - video.

The reason is that the shades of grey in video, which is technically called the dynamic range, are less than half of the subtle steps of light and dark of film. The result is much less depth, less subtlety.

There are also fewer pixels, or dots of light. And the way that these pixels display are uniform, rather than the organic grain of film. Most digital features have added "grain," to make it look more like film. If the grain isn't added digitally, the viewer would really notice its absence. Source

Barry may be a great cinematographer (I dunno, never heard of him) but he's got his facts all mixed up. For one, film doesn't have "subtle steps of light and dark" it has continuous gradations. The point is not the number or size of the steps anyway, it's the amount of gradation distinguishable by the human eye -- just like the variations in loudness in digital audio recording. Modern digital cameras, both moving and still, accomodate more f-stops than the eye can distinguish.

Secondly, film does not have pixels -- until you get all the way down to the level of the film's grain,which is microscopic (on the order of microns). I'm not exactly sure how that translates, in 35mm or 70mm film stock, to an image projected onto a 52' screen, a quick Google didn't turn up anything. Wikipedia does say:

In general, as the pixels from a digital image sensor are set in straight lines, they irritate the eye of the viewer more than the randomly arranged film grains. Most people will reject an enlargement that show pixels, whereas a grained film enlargement with lower resolution will be acceptable, and perceived as 'sharper'.

This would be analogous (there's that word again) to digital aliasing in sound recording, which listeners object to more than THD in analog recording -- partly because it is unfamiliar and thus more obtrusive.

But current state of the art, in both digital video recording and digital audio recording, is considerably beyond the perception of human senses.

[JKL2000]

VHS is warmer than both of them!

Actually, in terms of audio, I guess it is.

Reel-to-reel video tape is warmer than VHS!

[rcarlberg]

In the example given on this website they talk about "adding grain" (i.e. distortion) to make video look more like film. This is exactly the same as recording engineers adding hiss to make digital productions sound more like analog recordings.

Some of the early Pixar DVDs included a short documentary about how adding "motion blur" to fast-moving images made their motion seem more realistic -- again this is probably due to everyone's familiarity with the limitations of film.

"Film is warmer than digital video" IOW. LOL

[rcarlberg]

What are you watching on??

Sorry, missed this. 55" Samsung HD.

[rcarlberg]

I used to run a front projector- modest, just 720P DLP but a decent projector- and 90% of DVD was as unwatchable as VHS at that size (about 120").

Well, not to take the wind out of your sails but projection systems are NOTORIOUS for misalignment, causing ghosting and edge "ringing."

[trurl]

Well, not to take the wind out of your sails but projection systems are NOTORIOUS for misalignment, causing ghosting and edge "ringing."

You're thinking of CRT projection (which I was also into at one time and aligning them is half the fun!) A single panel digital DLP projector (which is what I had) has no alignment issues- it uses a single mirror system. There is a rotating color wheel in front of it that would create a "rainbow" issue for certain people at the rotation speeds for that generation (I wasn't one) but that's a totally different issue.

Here's a quick how-it-works if you're interested:
http://www.dlp.com/technology/how-dlp-works/

[philsunset]

Some interesting reading on old film....

http://www.filmjunk.com/2010/05/31/b...nefit-from-hd/

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/a...-worth-it.html

[rcarlberg]

Some interesting reading on old film....
http://www.filmjunk.com/2010/05/31/b...nefit-from-hd/

Yes, very interesting thanks.

despite my best efforts, I could not convince this fellow Tweeter that yes, black and white movies can look great on Blu-ray.

Except nobody was debating that.

Film has no real “resolution.” The actual resolution has been debated for many years, and Wizard of Oz was scanned in at 8K during the restoration process, meaning 7680 x 4320 was the output resolution (or thereabouts). It needed to be scaled down to 1080p for Blu-ray, meaning that yes, Wizard of Oz can still look better than it does now.

Subject to the availability of players, TVs and bandwidth between them, of course. Whether any additional detail is visible at 40x* the resolution is yet to be proven. The human eye has limitations too.

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/a...-worth-it.html

While true that newer titles are often more visually impressive than catalogue releases, this is largely due to the way in which modern features are filmed and transferred to digital media. Many recent blockbusters—such as James Cameron’s record-breaking Avatar—were shot in digital high-definition. Because no film is involved the resulting images are usually exceptionally clean and the Blu-ray editions are largely flawless. However, the majority of motion pictures were and are shot on 35mm film, which actually has a much greater resolution than Blu-ray and the kind of digital cameras used to film Avatar.

Except as Paprocki points out, "film has no resolution." You could in theory scan it in down to the micron level, the level of the "grain" in the film stock itself, but whether the viewer can distinguish between this scan and the original depends on the resolution discernable to the naked eye. Chances are, the "good enough to be indistinguishable to the naked eye" level is somewhere above the micron level.

Is it 720x480 standard TV resolution? 1080x768 VGA? Is it 1920x1080 HD? Something higher?

Only improved hardware for displaying the results will determine. But I contend there's a slope of diminishing returns here, and HD is already a long ways down that slope. The examples Chris posts to illustrate his article are proof of that -- the differences are pretty subtle when doubling the pixels (actually by 2.4, 720x480 vs 1080x768). Going to something radical like 40x the resolution would be exceedingly subtle!

By the way, Gould apparently misunderstands graininess in film too, like Barry Gross:

Just look at all of the detail contained in the image; you can clearly make out the chequered pattern on Dorothy’s dress and the intricate textures of the Good Witch of the North’s costume. Blurry faces and background information become clear and the colours are improved, all without destroying the film grain.

The only features that shouldn’t have any grain are those where the filmmakers intend its absence, such as those shot on digital video. Even then many directors chose to add a layer of digital grain to their films for atmospheric purposes (300 is a good example of this).

Of course there are some people who prefer this over-sanitised look, but most film enthusiasts would prefer that their Blu-ray releases represent the filmmakers’ original intentions, at least as much as possible. Such overzealous application of DNR (digital noise reduction) is detrimental to the film and is unfortunately becoming more commonplace as the Blu-ray format matures.

"Grain" is of course the noise in the print. "Directors chosing to add a layer of digital grain" is, again, the same thing as recording engineers adding hiss to digital recordings because they're too quiet.


* - 1080x768 = 829,440 pixels. 7680x4320 = 33,177,600 pixels = 40x the resolution.

[trurl]

Sorry, missed this. 55" Samsung HD.

Just out of interest, and I'm really just curious and not fishing for a "gotcha!"- have you done any kind of calibration with say, the AVIA disk or Video Essentials, or even a THX Optimizer, or had it calibrated, or is it basically out of the box?

[rcarlberg]

Just out of interest, and I'm really just curious and not fishing for a "gotcha!"- have you done any kind of calibration with say, the AVIA disk or Video Essentials, or even a THX Optimizer, or had it calibrated, or is it basically out of the box?

I calibrated it. Didn't need much. I A/B'ed a bunch of models and the Samsung was the sharpest, with the least edge distortion. And surprisingly (or maybe not), models much bigger than the 55 all looked like shit next to it.

On a separate subject... it really bugs me that 99% of the floor models you see in TV stores have the color saturation turned up to gag-reflex levels. Why is that?

[trurl]

I calibrated it. Didn't need much. I A/B'ed a bunch of models and the Samsung was the sharpest, with the least edge distortion. And surprisingly (or maybe not), models much bigger than the 55 all looked like shit next to it.

On a separate subject... it really bugs me that 99% of the floor models you see in TV stores have the color saturation turned up to gag-reflex levels. Why is that?

To make them pop in a bright store, just like loudness. Yeah, the Samsung is a really great set. If it's set up, and BR doesn't blow you away compared to DVD, you're just not the type of person that gets blown away by that stuff...

[rcarlberg]

BD is great, I said that at the outset. Having had the opportunity to compare the BD of Avatar with the DVD of it however, the differences are real but subtle. The scene where Trudy first lands the Scorpion at the remote outpost, the individual blades of grass are blown by the fans.

But.. So what?

[trurl]

BD is great, I said that at the outset. Having had the opportunity to compare the BD of Avatar with the DVD of it however, the differences are real but subtle. The scene where Trudy first lands the Scorpion at the remote outpost, the individual blades of grass are blown by the fans.

But.. So what?

Exactly.

[JKL2000]

One thing about BD (it's nor BR? Ok, BD), but it's just tough luck for me if I want BDs, is that the DVD packaging is so much nicer usually. Looking at Marillion's just released Brave Live 2013, the DVD is a nice digipak in a slipcase - the BD is a plastic box. Frak! Oh well...