Films on BluRay...

[Franklioni]

OK so this is sort of a double question but here goes...

Is there a list of films actually shot in HD that are now available on BluRay or does this not matter with the way they are transferred to the format?

Also, I keep seeing old classics released on BluRay but are they really going to be much better than the DVD upscaled?

I'll be doing my playback on a Panasonic DMP-BD30

Cheers,

Franklioni

 

[Anonymous]

When films are shot they are in way, way,way higher definition than BD, because they need to look good on cinema screens.

Therefore any film will be able to be converted to HD several generations in the future.ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

Some of the older releases have been a mixed bag but overall they are better than DVD upscaled. Some are magnificant including The Searchers.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Ive heard tell of some being no more than 'upscaled dvds'!!

I believe 'Escape From New York' is one and actually looks WORSE than its dvd counterpart! (EDITED for house rules violations - Mods methinks)

 

[Anonymous]

Very, very true I merely state that all modern films have the capacity to be converted.

 

[aliEnRIK]

As a comparison of dvd to bluray, I watched Mad Max 2 the other day (managed to pick it up for 12 quid off ebay). On first viewing I wasnt entirely impressed but as I watched the film it became clear its a CLEAR step up from the upscaled dvd. I saw detail in the picture thats just not there on the dvd. People from afar are clearly recognisable and suchlike. The rocks and ground have so much detail its unbelievable. Everythings so much more '3 dimensional'. Dont get me wrong, its not like viewing a whole different movie, but the quality (especially for such an old film) was awesome compared to the dvd (which is fine for a dvd)

By the way, this is viewed on a 1080p Pioneer via a PS3 (FANTASTIC piece of kit for the price) and using real quality cabling and a russ andrews powerblock. Id say as far as hi def films are concerned you really need to spend a bit of cash to get the best out of the tv but of course at the end of the day if your eyes arent upto it then its really not worth it and you may as well stick to upscaled dvds.

 

[professorhat]

Okay, this is really why you need to read reviews of Blu-Rays being released now before buying (much like you had to with their DVD counterparts on their initial release at the beginning of that format).
Firstly, the age of the release doesn't matter. Look at 2001 or Blade Runner on Blu-Ray if you want proof. Basically, before a few years ago, all films were filmed on standard 35mm film, which has a far higher resolution than Blu-Ray (as shown by the fact someone already said in that they were shown on huge screens without issue in the cinema). So these films can be transferred to a Blu-Ray release so long as the original film still exists and can be used to create the Blu-Ray transfer. Unfortunately, the DVD release presents a tempting upscaling platform for some studios willing to try and coax money out of a new untrusted format. This is certainly the case in some releases (e.g. Gangs of New York).
The issue with this is, despite what short term gains the movie studio thinks it will get, no one gains from such short sighted releases. The public doesn't gain as they see a title which clearly doesn't live up to the hype of the new format and actually spreads more stories of how the new format isn't as good as the old one (clearly a bad result for the movie studios). The studio side is a title which doesn't produce good sales (since a lot of people at this stage are early adopters who are fairly careful on how they spend their money since they understand the strengths and limitations of the format).
What amazes me is, the above is nothing new - it was true with DVD and now it's true of Blu-Ray and the manufacturers seem to think that maybe people will forget what happened last time! The sooner we get proper full Blu-Ray releases with decent new HD video transfers and proper HD audio soundtracks, the quicker people will see how much better the format is and the quicker it will take off.

 

[Anonymous]

Agreed, lazy bustards.

 

[radovantz]

Picture quality in cimenas is too much better than blue-ray. Its is big and detailed. We can clearly see every single spot at the ship body in the Pirates of The Carribbean. This must be the reason why producers still use film rolls in making their movies.

Any better than blue ray player, you will have to purchase film player. haha

 

[Franklioni]

Thanks for the feedback...I'm actually watching the bluray discs on a Sony KDL-40V2000 so not 1080 but still better than 720 and its only 40" so still good pic. I'm also running it from my Panasonic BD39 through my Denon 2307 as the TV ony has one HDMI....yup should have waited but if you don't buy now when do you!

 

[nads]

professorhat i thought things were meant to get better now that BR had one the war? well that is what everyone was saying......

 

[Anonymous]

Absolutely. Film is generally best. Not always, but generally.
But the things to watch out for are:
- Recent movies shot on HD and migrated progressively to film have a smeary, soft look to my eye that isn't pleasing. Look at Bourne Ultimatum and Superman Returns. Decidedly odd, I think. They'd've looked so much better shot on 35mm.
- I don't get Cloverfield. Shot on HD tape. Migrated to film for theatrical release, and then shoved onto BD with a film effect. Shouldn't it actually LOOK like video? Anyway, I digress.
- Avoid low budget 'indie' movies on BD. They're probably shot on 16mm or cheaper 35mm stock that has a lower resolution so there's no real benefit over an upscaled DVD.
- Watch out for movies made before the mid/late-70's. Film stock before then had better grain and looks stunning in HD. Look at Bonnie and Clyde, The Wild Bunch. Beautiful.
- Collect large format, film-produced movies. 2001 was partially shot in 70mm and designed to be screened in 70mm theatres. Zulu (remastered by paramount and Sky into HD and yet to be released on BD) was also shot in 70mm. The Searchers was shot in VistaVision, which is the only true 16:9 HD film format and that's why it looks so beautiful and detailed. Just wait until North By Northwest appears next year. That'll be a reference disc if ever there was one.
- Look at some really old classics. The Adventures of Robin Hood ('39) was shot in Academy (4:3) Technicolor and looks beautiful. Original three-strip Technicolor is a gift for HD, because of the vivid colours and high detail within the film frame, so let's hope MGM and Warners are working their way through the classic Technicolor musicals of the 40's and 50's, for example. They will release the '54 Garland version of A Star Is Born next year, I understand. Shaw Brothers have released some of their classic 70's Kung Fu actioners on HD, and as some of the last movies to be shot in Technicolor, they are simply beautiful. 'Casablanca' is also gorgeous to look at. Yes, it's black and white and Academy, but the level of detail from the beautifully restored high grain print is dazzling. On the other hand '20 Million Miles To Earth' (in both b/w and colorized versions on the same BD) has waaaaay too much grain and looks decidedly average.
The thing is to check out on-line reviews. Remember the early days of DVD? Distributors were shoving out bare bones, dodgy transfered discs in the early days only to re-issue them as 'proper' versions down the road. The same thing's happening here with BluRay. Not to the same degree, but there's a obvious lack of care with some titles. 'Dirty Harry' should look a whole lot better.
Caveat Emptor, as they say.

 

[professorhat]

nads:professorhat i thought things were meant to get better now that BR had won the war?
They will, but unfortunately that doesn't stop some film studios hoping to make a quick buck putting out a dodgy transfer from the DVD master - believe me, if it were up to me, this would be illegal! It was the same with DVD when it was new as Casca says, hence the large number of "Special Editions" of certain films.

 

[Anonymous]

Casca:. - Watch out for movies made before the mid/late-70's. Film stock before then had better grain and looks stunning in HD. .

Ah - I worked for Kodak for many years and I think you have that the wrong way around T grain technology actually emerged in the late '70's and grain size got smaller so images were more detailed / less grainy. Processing technology also took a jump forward giveing a much more natural colour pallette than the old Technicolor.

Had a real nostalgic moment then remembering Kodak Park in Rochester NY in it's heyday.

 

[Anonymous]

I take your point; that should be the case. But why then from the late 70's into the 80's do so many films look waaaayy too grainy, dull and lacking in detail?
Look at the BD of Wall Street for example. Flat, grainy and dull.
There's a brightness and crispness in those earlier movies that's sadly lacking in films of the period we're talking about. Maybe it's the way they're lit (natural light etc) but that's certainly how they look.