|
||||||||
Older films on BluRay |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brynaman
Posts: 84
|
Older films on BluRay
Am I correct to assume that when making films for cinema, the cameras used are higher resolution than bluray?
The reason I ask is that I want to upgrade some of my DVDs (Matrix Trilogy etc) to bluray versions - but wondered would the quality really be any better? Do they get re-encoded from the original camera shoot? Not sure if I am making sense but maybe someone get's my question. LOL. GJE |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
|
Yep 35mm (the dominant theatrical format) is capable of providing a far higher resolution image than the current HD spec requires. The deciding factor in how good a HD version (Blu or Broadcast) looks is down to production choices and storage of the material when it's scanned by a computer to produce the 1080p/24 digital master as sometimes cash is saved by using lower quality film, dirt and scratches effect the negatives etc.
The Matrix trilogy has been released on HD DVD and Blu-ray and on broadcast HD, allowing for the very stylised look of the movie the HD versions are superior to the DVD. Review |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brynaman
Posts: 84
|
Thanks foe the reply. I presumed this was the case - especially when you see films on Sky HD or on Bluray that were released before the formats were available.
Excellent stuff. I wonder if The original Star Wars Trilogy will ever be re-mastered for bluray. Gareth |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
I wonder if The original Star Wars Trilogy will ever be re-mastered for bluray.
Gareth |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,727
|
I have the Matrix trilogy on blu-ray and can confirm that it looks better than on DVD. I've also got blu-ray films going back a good 10 years before the first Matrix film was released and they look very good too. Some of them are a bit grainy in places, but that just makes it feel like you're at the cinema
The issue with 35mm film is not the level of detail, which is always higher than HD, its the level of grain which is higher when a faster film was used to compensate for inadequate lighting. The worst I've seen is the steelworks scene at the end of Terminator 2 which was very grainy on blu-ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bracknell
Posts: 4,894
|
I think the worst transfer i have ever come across was "an american werewolf in london"
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,052
|
Recently got 2001 on Bluray- Very good restoration of detail and colour. about 1/3 better than DVD.
It looks like they took the original 35mm as it doesn't look like unscaled Digital. And if it is its still an improvement. Was thinking of seeing how ZULU fairs ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,984
|
Having got a Sharp Aquos player for free at the weekend, I've rented some blu-ray discs. Some newer films, some old stuff.
Robocop - Surprising good for the most part considering this is a 20 year old film. The news and advert segments look terrible, but that's to be expected. Considerable grain on poorly lit or dark scenes, and on dark colours, but the images are sharper than on the DVD. Die Hard 2 - Decent enough transfer. Images and edges are slightly soft for HD, but I found this counteracted the grain. Perfectly watchable and an improvement on the DVD. However the clarity of the transfer didn't show until the start of the end credits. Transformers - Very good quality transfer, with sharp images and excellent colour, although surprisingly grainy in some shots, especially in the dark. The CGI looks fantastic, while in the above two films, any blue screen objects had black lines around them. Blu-ray is only for the visual clarity improvements of the robots with this film. Verdict on blu-ray: Give the cost of players and discs, it's not the DVD killer Sony would like us to believe, especially for any films over 10 years old. It's better than upscaled DVD, but if you're happy with upscaled standard def then stick with it, because the difference isn't big enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bracknell
Posts: 4,894
|
Quote:
Recently got 2001 on Bluray- Very good restoration of detail and colour. about 1/3 better than DVD.
It looks like they took the original 35mm as it doesn't look like unscaled Digital. And if it is its still an improvement. Was thinking of seeing how ZULU fairs ? you should give wall-e a try. jawdropping doesn't even begin to do it justice |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,462
|
Quote:
Am I correct to assume that when making films for cinema, the cameras used are higher resolution than bluray?
The best thing to do is have a look at some of the movie review sites that BR rate picture and sound as well as the quality of the acting and story etc. Try: AVForums Movie Reviews DVD Review Blu-ray.com DVD Town
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,052
|
Quote:
As other have said, 35mm film stock is higher res than 1080p Bluray, but you shouldn't think that it automatically means that BR releases of old films will look better. The type of film stock, the lighting on set, what sort of look the director intended, how the film is processed then edited, how the DVD is mastered - all these are far more significant than the type of camera used. I certainly wouldn't spend dosh on BR releases unless I knew the picture quality was worth the extra.
The best thing to do is have a look at some of the movie review sites that BR rate picture and sound as well as the quality of the acting and story etc. Try: AVForums Movie Reviews DVD Review Blu-ray.com DVD Town ![]() The 2008 films look stunning and much sharper/richer than older blurays. The only Age exception i have found beigng Casino Royal- but this was a Sony flagship Bluray Planet Earth although visually stunning is a poor Bluray- artifacts and colour banding plague the picture. Its fuzzy in places and not very clear. The BBC PAL HD version is much better. Anyway off out now ! Happy New Year! |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Southern England
Posts: 1,114
|
Quote:
True, I have found only the very recent films and massive blockbusters are what you would call outstanding HD. For example The Dark Night looks better all the way through compared to Batman Returns.
The 2008 films look stunning and much sharper/richer than older blurays. The only Age exception i have found beigng Casino Royal- but this was a Sony flagship Bluray Planet Earth although visually stunning is a poor Bluray- artifacts and colour banding plague the picture. Its fuzzy in places and not very clear. The BBC PAL HD version is much better. Anyway off out now ! Happy New Year! This is mentioned on the box. As for older films not looking good in HD - complete rubbish. Virtually all theatrical movies are made on 35mm which as already stated delivers better quality than current HD. Also mentioned is that the quality of Bluray and HD broadcasts of all films can change depending on what the director intended at the time of production aswell as the technology of the time. The improved resolution is a dead giveaway for the 50+ year old films of Ray Harryhausen when old fashioned bluescreen and simple matte backdrops were the best there was so its obvious that effects based films will look better but an ordinary studio based film made without directorial flourishes of tints or other image alterations will look as good on a 50 year old film as it does today. The Dr No Bluray is one worth mentioning . I've watched my 4 Die Hard films on Bluray this week and the improved quality is easy to see- the first 2 DH films are nearly 20 years old clearly showing this waffle about only new films looking good is incorrect. While newer material will look better than older stuff in some ways the same material will also look better on dvd too . A side by side comparision of any dvd next to its HD version will show clear improvements - and the jump in quality from dvd is what its all about I wonder how many times in 2009 we will see the same crap posted about old stuff on HD being a ripoff because "it wasnt made in HD" |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,462
|
I just want to clarify this for the casual reader...
The age of the original film is no guarantee as to how good or bad it might look on a Blu-ray transfer. Old films remastered and transferred with care to BR could look absolutely stunning. Similarly, a recent big hit with a poor transfer might not look that good at all (Mama Mia comes to mind) Beware film companies cashing in on Blu-ray by releasing their old back catalogue on the new format. Use movie review sites as a guide to picture and sound quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,727
|
Quote:
The 2008 films look stunning and much sharper/richer than older blurays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,229
|
Quote:
If you check out the specs of Planet Earth you will find that a good deal of it is upscaled SD and not genuine HD.
This is mentioned on the box. As for older films not looking good in HD - complete rubbish. Virtually all theatrical movies are made on 35mm which as already stated delivers better quality than current HD. Also mentioned is that the quality of Bluray and HD broadcasts of all films can change depending on what the director intended at the time of production aswell as the technology of the time. The improved resolution is a dead giveaway for the 50+ year old films of Ray Harryhausen when old fashioned bluescreen and simple matte backdrops were the best there was so its obvious that effects based films will look better but an ordinary studio based film made without directorial flourishes of tints or other image alterations will look as good on a 50 year old film as it does today. The Dr No Bluray is one worth mentioning . I've watched my 4 Die Hard films on Bluray this week and the improved quality is easy to see- the first 2 DH films are nearly 20 years old clearly showing this waffle about only new films looking good is incorrect. While newer material will look better than older stuff in some ways the same material will also look better on dvd too . A side by side comparision of any dvd next to its HD version will show clear improvements - and the jump in quality from dvd is what its all about I wonder how many times in 2009 we will see the same crap posted about old stuff on HD being a ripoff because "it wasnt made in HD" |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: south yorkshire
Posts: 1,264
|
totally agree with all of the above ref older films, i am very dissapointed at the newer films which with technological standards as they are you would expect to be better.
i bought the batman franchise on blu ray over xmas (batman, returns, robin and forever) and the first 2 look better than the newer ones. also have men in black which is incredible (it seems warners are the best at old films) and as for Dr No, it is incredible. more back catalogue films please.... ![]() p.s. the batmans are in the 2 for 25 sale at blockbuster. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,307
|
I thought the Godfather thrillogy was disappointing on Blu ray (I don't know why it's the disc(s) of the year according to some people!), yes there is a difference between it and the DVD version, but something like Live and Let Die, which was made in the same period, I thought looked far more stunning!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9
|
There are so many factors that make a good or bad transfer to BR. Newer films already exist in a digital format, many new films are scanned and FX, Colour Correction is done in a Digital Intermediate process, resulting in files being available digitally, before being shot back to film.
Depending on the budget for restoration, scans could be 4K (4096 x 2304) or 2K (2048x1152) The vertical resolution can change depending on the format but these are quite common sizes. 4K is more expensive to scan and restore, there is a spanload of data in a 4K image (50mb per frame) and doing noise reduction, scratch removal, dust removal and color restoration is much ..more computationally expensive. 2K can commonly be played back and corrected in real time and Dust, Noise removal is much faster. You will notice that the difference between 2K and 1080 HD is not that great resolution wise. Also, if the film is very old and there is only a print available, more work is needed and some details are irretrievably lost. Noise hides in the black and midtones. I loved Bladerunner on BR and will watching Dark City when the wife goes to bed! The other thing that differentiates BR and DVD....BR has a better compression algorithm that results in less artefacting. Proper progressive pictures. There are many other things that go into this...but I think it comes down to time and money and what they think they are going to get back. The Prisoner and Space 1999 was restored very well and looks great. Regards Patrick |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Southern England
Posts: 1,114
|
Quote:
I thought the Godfather thrillogy was disappointing on Blu ray (I don't know why it's the disc(s) of the year according to some people!), yes there is a difference between it and the DVD version, but something like Live and Let Die, which was made in the same period, I thought looked far more stunning!
The original dvd boxset was so bad for 35mm film I sold it as soon as I saw it and I put it down to laziness in the preparation of the dvd's - either with only obtaining old worn prints or authoring. However it would seem to be the directors intention to make the flms look this way rather than the clean polished look of something like The Untouchables. The forced green tint on The Matrix makes for a similar problem in judging the quality of these films in HD. Side by side with dvd should show the improvement but looking at them on their own makes you wonder what is wrong when there actually isnt anything wrong at all. The increased grain of old effects films or strings in Thunderbirds make HD versions a compromise- do you want the best image but giving away things not noticed since cinema screenings or lesser quality with the onscreen fakery less obvious ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
|
[quote=frogstar_uk;29808479]There are so many factors that make a good or bad transfer to BR. Newer films already exist in a digital format, many new films are scanned and FX, Colour Correction is done in a Digital Intermediate process, resulting in files being available digitally, before being shot back to film.
This is so true. Restoration is an intense process check out this link I came across: http://digitalrestorationme.com/Rest...n-Process.aspx As Patrick rightly said it all comes down to time and money. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,727
|
Quote:
You will notice that the difference between 2K and 1080 HD is not that great resolution wise.
Quote:
will watching Dark City when the wife goes to bed!
Lovely, my favourite blu-ray film
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Herts
Posts: 17,006
|
Yes, there are some Blu-ray transfers that are so bad you wonder why they bothered. I've become very selective on what I buy on Blu-ray.
Can't wait for Lawrence of Arabia to become available on the basis that if the original cinematography was excellent then it's going to look justs as great on Blu-ray. Also agree with the previous post on The Searchers, my favourite western. It looks absolutley superb on Blu-ray. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Leicester
Posts: 537
|
Have to agree with most of the posters. I have the Godfather Trilogy and it's so poor I'm almost sorry to have bought it. Then I have Dr No which looks so fresh and clean it could have been made yesterday. Balance that against something like the Oldman Dracula...mmmm...just spotted the link there - perhaps FFC should be avoided for BluRays !
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 632
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,127
|
Quote:
Have to agree with most of the posters. I have the Godfather Trilogy and it's so poor I'm almost sorry to have bought it. Then I have Dr No which looks so fresh and clean it could have been made yesterday. Balance that against something like the Oldman Dracula...mmmm...just spotted the link there - perhaps FFC should be avoided for BluRays !
It could be the company that restores them though!
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:44.



The issue with 35mm film is not the level of detail, which is always higher than HD, its the level of grain which is higher when a faster film was used to compensate for inadequate lighting. The worst I've seen is the steelworks scene at the end of Terminator 2 which was very grainy on blu-ray.
