[the chimp]

I hear of some films that have been transferred to blu-ray without any upscalling or the slightest bit of HD about them, hopefully this can be a thread to warn others before they think of purchasing them on blu-ray so they can save a few quid and simply get them on DVD.

I'll kick this off :

28 Days later.

I was really looking forward to this for the deserted London scenes, disappointed would be an understatement, it is like a 700mb download from a pirate site If that was all they were going to push out they why bother apart from to simply con people like me who thought they were buying a Hi Def copy of the film ?

[the chimp]

I am reliably informed that Robocop is also an awful transfer to blu-ray.

[Roush]

www.highdefdigest.com is a good place to have a search on before buying Blu-rays.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1085/28dayslater.html

[fastest finger]

Originally Posted by the chimp

I hear of some films that have been transferred to blu-ray without any upscalling or the slightest bit of HD about them, hopefully this can be a thread to warn others before they think of purchasing them on blu-ray so they can save a few quid and simply get them on DVD.

I'll kick this off :

28 Days later.

I was really looking forward to this for the deserted London scenes, disappointed would be an understatement, it is like a 700mb download from a pirate site If that was all they were going to push out they why bother apart from to simply con people like me who thought they were buying a Hi Def copy of the film ?

28 Days Later is a tricky one, because there is no HD version. The film was mostly shot on a Standard Definition camcorder to give the film it's gritty look. It will have been upscaled for its Blu-ray release, but it is never going to look crisp and sharp, and was never meant to.

Perhaps it should mention this on the packaging so that customers can make an informed choice before buying? Or should we just accept that this is the way the Director intended the film to be seen?

[fastest finger]

Originally Posted by the chimp

I am reliably informed that Robocop is also an awful transfer to blu-ray.

There are 2 versions. The first was terrible. They had a go at it a second time, and while not brilliant is much better than their first attempt.

[fmradiotuner1]

The UK version of the walking dead which got some cuts in was going to buy it but this put me off.
The US version is uncut but locked to so will not play on the PS3.
So have to stick with the HDTV rips for now.

[the chimp]

Originally Posted by fastest finger

28 Days Later is a tricky one, because there is no HD version. The film was mostly shot on a Standard Definition camcorder to give the film it's gritty look. It will have been upscaled for its Blu-ray release, but it is never going to look crisp and sharp, and was never meant to.

Perhaps it should mention this on the packaging so that customers can make an informed choice before buying? Or should we just accept that this is the way the Director intended the film to be seen?

On the first bit it definitely hasn't been upscalled, it really is appalling.

On the second bit I couldn't agree more, but even better than that if it hasn't or can't be improved them why release it at all apart from to try and con people.

[the chimp]

Originally Posted by Roush

www.highdefdigest.com is a good place to have a search on before buying Blu-rays.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1085/28dayslater.html

Thanks for that, bookmarked.

[fastest finger]

Originally Posted by the chimp

On the first bit it definitely hasn't been upscalled, it really is appalling..

Upscaling just increases the number of pixels, doesn't necessarily mean there'll be a visible improvement in picture quality.

[the chimp]

Originally Posted by fastest finger

Upscaling just increases the number of pixels, doesn't necessarily mean there'll be a visible improvement in picture quality.

I know what upscaling is and honestly on this blu-ray it has to be seen to be believed to see how bad it is, the blacks are appalling on dark scenes for a start, the picture is very blurry on long shots, I was starting to think that I hadn't set up my new tv right so I popped in a normal dvd and the picture was very crisp, like I said in my first post it was like a 700mb pirate download, if I get chance later I'll try and take a couple of pics and post links.

[the chimp]

Originally Posted by fastest finger

There are 2 versions. The first was terrible. They had a go at it a second time, and while not brilliant is much better than their first attempt.

Is there any difference on the packaging to show which one is which ?

[alan1302]

Originally Posted by the chimp

I know what upscaling is and honestly on this blu-ray it has to be seen to be believed to see how bad it is, the blacks are appalling on dark scenes for a start, the picture is very blurry on long shots, I was starting to think that I hadn't set up my new tv right so I popped in a normal dvd and the picture was very crisp, like I said in my first post it was like a 700mb pirate download, if I get chance later I'll try and take a couple of pics and post links.

But how does the Bluray compare to the actual film – if it’s meant to look a bit rubbish because that’s what the director wanted then the Bluray is never going to look great.

[the chimp]

Originally Posted by alan1302

But how does the Bluray compare to the actual film – if it’s meant to look a bit rubbish because that’s what the director wanted then the Bluray is never going to look great.

To be honest it's worse than the DVD I remember seeing, I don't believe it's meant to be anywhere near this bad.

[unique]

Originally Posted by the chimp

I hear of some films that have been transferred to blu-ray without any upscalling or the slightest bit of HD about them, hopefully this can be a thread to warn others before they think of purchasing them on blu-ray so they can save a few quid and simply get them on DVD.

I'll kick this off :

28 Days later.

I was really looking forward to this for the deserted London scenes, disappointed would be an understatement, it is like a 700mb download from a pirate site If that was all they were going to push out they why bother apart from to simply con people like me who thought they were buying a Hi Def copy of the film ?

28 days later was actually shot using a few different formats from early digital video cameras for some shots, to 8mm analogue film camera for the flashback scene and 35mm for other scenes such as the final scene, so presumably for the bluray they would have telecined from the original negative or maybe a print if it's as bad as you describe

some bluray transfers are just straight telecines with little to no remastering, such as cleaing up dirt and scratches on prints, colour correction, etc, so compared to a good transfer that's done well, the bad ones will stick out more, and even moreso than a bad dvd would stick out from a good one

[the chimp]

Originally Posted by unique

28 days later was actually shot using a few different formats from early digital video cameras for some shots, to 8mm analogue film camera for the flashback scene and 35mm for other scenes such as the final scene, so presumably for the bluray they would have telecined from the original negative or maybe a print if it's as bad as you describe

some bluray transfers are just straight telecines with little to no remastering, such as cleaing up dirt and scratches on prints, colour correction, etc, so compared to a good transfer that's done well, the bad ones will stick out more, and even moreso than a bad dvd would stick out from a good one

You're explanation sounds like it fits this one perfectly, it seems very lazy to do that, if this is how it looks on tv I can't imagine how bad it would have looked in the cinema, some of the long range shots were rediculously blurry.

[unique]

Originally Posted by the chimp

You're explanation sounds like it fits this one perfectly, it seems very lazy to do that, if this is how it looks on tv I can't imagine how bad it would have looked in the cinema, some of the long range shots were rediculously blurry.

i never saw it in the cinema as i'm not a fan of horror/zombie type stuff normally and by the time i'd been made aware it was worth watching the dvd was out, i think quite quickly after it had been in the cinema, so i watched that. i have the bluray but haven't watched it. likewise trainspotting as whilst it's a favourite film of mine i've seen it so many times. i might have watched shallowgrave that came in the same box

it's not really laziness as such to do a direct transfer, it's more than the suites that are required to clean up material are very expensive to rent by the hour and it takes many hours of work to clean every frame of a movie, even doing it automated. you have 24 frames per second, so that's 1440 frames a minute, which is 86400 frames an hour, so even a short 90 minute movie has about 130,000 frames to clean. that's time consuming and expensive. there is a limited market for certain movies so it's not cost effective to spend so much on restoration. sometimes they will stick a movie out, judge it's success and sometimes go back and remaster it, like robocop and terminator(or T2). usually even a straight telecine will give a better image than the dvd so you still get an upgrade in video and sound with higher bitrates and more pixels involved

[the chimp]

Originally Posted by unique

i never saw it in the cinema as i'm not a fan of horror/zombie type stuff normally and by the time i'd been made aware it was worth watching the dvd was out, i think quite quickly after it had been in the cinema, so i watched that. i have the bluray but haven't watched it. likewise trainspotting as whilst it's a favourite film of mine i've seen it so many times. i might have watched shallowgrave that came in the same box

it's not really laziness as such to do a direct transfer, it's more than the suites that are required to clean up material are very expensive to rent by the hour and it takes many hours of work to clean every frame of a movie, even doing it automated. you have 24 frames per second, so that's 1440 frames a minute, which is 86400 frames an hour, so even a short 90 minute movie has about 130,000 frames to clean. that's time consuming and expensive. there is a limited market for certain movies so it's not cost effective to spend so much on restoration. sometimes they will stick a movie out, judge it's success and sometimes go back and remaster it, like robocop and terminator(or T2). usually even a straight telecine will give a better image than the dvd so you still get an upgrade in video and sound with higher bitrates and more pixels involved

If they aren't going to do anything with it then there's no need to release it on blu-ray surely.

[unique]

Originally Posted by the chimp

If they aren't going to do anything with it then there's no need to release it on blu-ray surely.

why not? people want movies on bluray, so it satisfies demand. they make moneys and sell blurays to make money, not for fun

even a straight transfer can look better than a dvd, especially if the dvd was also a straight transfer

[the chimp]

Originally Posted by unique

why not? people want movies on bluray, so it satisfies demand. they make moneys and sell blurays to make money, not for fun

even a straight transfer can look better than a dvd, especially if the dvd was also a straight transfer

It is not satisfying a demand for films on blu-ray because if somebody wants a film on blu-ray it is for one reason: HD.

If the film they get is simply a SD version transferred onto a blu-ray disc it is satisfying nobody as that film is already available on a normal DVD, if I'm buying and paying the extra cost of a blu-ray then as a minimum I expect the film to have been cleaned up/reworked, otherwise what is the point of a blu-ray player ?

[alan1302]

Originally Posted by the chimp

It is not satisfying a demand for films on blu-ray because if somebody wants a film on blu-ray it is for one reason: HD.

If the film they get is simply a SD version transferred onto a blu-ray disc it is satisfying nobody as that film is already available on a normal DVD, if I'm buying and paying the extra cost of a blu-ray then as a minimum I expect the film to have been cleaned up/reworked, otherwise what is the point of a blu-ray player ?

As a Bluray disc can store more information in theory even if it's an SD transfer then it could look better as it would be compressed more.

If you expect every film to be cleaned and reworked then you will be expecting for a long while as for most films it is not worth the extra costs involved.

[the chimp]

Originally Posted by alan1302

As a Bluray disc can store more information in theory even if it's an SD transfer then it could look better as it would be compressed more.

If you expect every film to be cleaned and reworked then you will be expecting for a long while as for most films it is not worth the extra costs involved.

Point 1 it doesn't neither sound nor picture.

Point 2 I would rather they didn't release it than rip me off, so if it isn't worth the costs then don't do a blu-ray version.

[unique]

Originally Posted by the chimp

It is not satisfying a demand for films on blu-ray because if somebody wants a film on blu-ray it is for one reason: HD.

no it's not. different people have different reasons. many people just want to watch the movie

If the film they get is simply a SD version transferred onto a blu-ray disc it is satisfying nobody as that film is already available on a normal DVD, if I'm buying and paying the extra cost of a blu-ray then as a minimum I expect the film to have been cleaned up/reworked, otherwise what is the point of a blu-ray player ?

but i don't know of any blurays that just take the SD versions and stick them onto bluray. they will usually telecine a new master. but even if it was SD source, as bluray allows a higher bitrate for audio and video, you can still get a better picture on bluray from an SD source. usually only bonus "extras" would potentially be SD

[the chimp]

Originally Posted by unique

no it's not. different people have different reasons. many people just want to watch the movie



but i don't know of any blurays that just take the SD versions and stick them onto bluray. they will usually telecine a new master. but even if it was SD source, as bluray allows a higher bitrate for audio and video, you can still get a better picture on bluray from an SD source. usually only bonus "extras" would potentially be SD

If they just want to watch the film then they would watch it on DVD, nobody buys a blu-ray version of anything except to watch it in the best possible standard, otherwise if they weren't bothered they would buy the much cheaper DVD version.

On the second part, you do now, 28 days later, no improved audio or anything

[-GONZO-]

Originally Posted by unique

no it's not
but i don't know of any blurays that just take the SD versions and stick them onto bluray.

May I draw your attention to Airwolf The Movie.
Its pretty much a VHS to Blu Ray transfer and I'm not kidding either.

[alan1302]

Originally Posted by the chimp

If they just want to watch the film then they would watch it on DVD, nobody buys a blu-ray version of anything except to watch it in the best possible standard, otherwise if they weren't bothered they would buy the much cheaper DVD version.

On the second part, you do now, 28 days later, no improved audio or anything

But as explained even if it is just an SD transfer it will still look better than the DVD version as it will not be as compressed.

Just been reading a review of 28 Days Later on Hi Def Reviews and they says that the audio quality is much better than the DVD and that the original film was done on a Canon XL-1s standard-definition camcorder at 720x576 so the film itself was never filmed at full HD quality so the film would not have had a brilliant look at the cinema