do cartoons benefit from bluray?

[ElFenix]

in specific i'm trying to figure out if i should get the archer blu rays vs. the dvds.


but also i'm wondering just generally.

 

[A5]

It probably doesn't hurt, and more resolution (and much higher bitrate) is always better.

 

[jtvang125]

With cgi animations yes you can notice the difference but not so much with the hand drawn ones.

 

[zerocool84]

It really depends. Snow White looked awesome on Blu-ray which is hand drawn animation

 

[ElFenix]

thanks

 

[darkswordsman17]

It really depends.

I use Blu-Ray.com to check. They generally have a review that mentions quality and issues as well as screenshots.

Animated stuff is actually pretty in line with non-animated stuff in that if it was quality to begin with it'll show up, but could suffer from bad transfer or some issues could be heightened (there was some show, I think Venture Bros. that it mentioned would look great most of the time, but then could look pretty bad at times too).

It really depends. Snow White looked awesome on Blu-ray which is hand drawn animation

Many of those Disney films looked, in my opinion, mind-blowingly good. Sleeping Beauty is stunning. Beauty and the Beast was another great looking one that didn't suffer from the change in animation techniques that the film utilized (like other ones that used some CGI type of things for instance).

Quite a bit of that is Disney went and did a good job of transferring it, something I don't believe the earlier (DVD) releases got. Of course that means I doubt it'll keep improving by that same amount when we inevitably move to higher resolution (likely the transfer was done at 4-8K).

Its kinda like some old films like Sound of Music. If the transfer is done well, and the source is good, it'll shine on Blu-Ray. Some of those old films look very nice on Blu-Ray, color especially seems to pop (but not in the modern high contrast artsy-type of way).

 

[darkswordsman17]

Looks like Archer would be worth it:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Archer-The-Complete-Season-One-Blu-ray/29319/
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Archer-The-Complete-Season-Two-Blu-ray/32365/

 

[Anarchist420]

I don't know why they wouldn't. However, Bluray videos suck anyway because they're lossy.

 

[BassBomb]

I don't know why they wouldn't. However, Bluray videos suck anyway because they're lossy.

So... every video sucks?

 

[A5]

I don't know why they wouldn't. However, Bluray videos suck anyway because they're lossy.

Uncompressed 1080p video @ 24fps (and 16-bit color depth) would be 796 MBps. Blu-ray gets you really, really close to that with only 40 MBps. There isn't any practical lossless video compression that I am aware of.

 

[Modelworks]

Compressed video depends highly on who did the encoding. Some studios , like with Snow White ,will have people examining every frame that comes out of the encoder and tweaking the results, while others will simply stream the content to the encoder and press it to disc without worrying about the results.

 

[A5]

Compressed video depends highly on who did the encoding. Some studios , like with Snow White ,will have people examining every frame that comes out of the encoder and tweaking the results, while others will simply stream the content to the encoder and press it to disc without worrying about the results.

Well yeah. My point was that a well-transferred Blu-Ray doesn't lose enough quality to where considering a lossless solution (if it were even possible) makes sense.

 

[JackBurton]

I don't know why they wouldn't. However, Bluray videos suck anyway because they're lossy.

So you've done a comparison between the raw uncompressed footage to the Blu-ray version? What display were you viewing this on that you could tell the difference?

 

[General Kenobi]

It depends. Futurama certainly would - the Finnish animated comedy Pasila would benefit far less from Blu-ray, so it varies from show to show. These are the ones I usually watch scaled to 1080p from DVD on my 40" HDTV.

Incidentally, check YT for Pasila if you're interested in genuinely funny animated shows. Some of the episodes should have English subs.

 

[Nebor]

I don't know why they wouldn't. However, Bluray videos suck anyway because they're lossy.

Somehow I bet that doesn't keep you from pirating the shit out of them.

 

[Anarchist420]

So... every video sucks?

Yep. The artifacts bug the hell out of me, but I guess when HDTVs are so shitty it doesn't bother most people. Or since they buy into the 1080p marketing gimmick they don't care about quality. I'd much rather have 800x600p lossless than 1920x1080p lossy. I realize that the detail would be far less, but what good does detail do if you have a lot of compression artifacts?

So you've done a comparison between the raw uncompressed footage to the Blu-ray version? What display were you viewing this on that you could tell the difference?

It doesn't take much of a display to see all of the compression artifacts. The detail would be amazing, but only if it was without compression artifacts. Further, I've observed a large difference when I watch a recorded video with FRAPS without RGB lossless checked vs. with it checked. It takes a lot more space, but it's worth every bit (pun intended).

Imagine if GPU IHVs lossily compressed RGBA backbuffer precision (or even if they started using RGB7 front buffers)--the artifacts would be noticeable left and right (especially the more the resolution was) and in the case they used lossy depth buffer compression, long ass depth ranges wouldn't look as good. Even with the best color dithering techniques like 3dfx did, most people would be able to observe the difference. We can already see how bad lossy textures look (some 4:1 S3TC textures look downright awful). Textures would be a lot smaller if they were lossless, but there would be no compression artifacts.

If there is audio I'm not interested in, then I don't really care if it's an MP3 and I probably wouldn't pick up the difference. However, lossy video has outlived its usefulness since we don't need all of the detail of 1080p. 720p lossless video would provide sufficient detail for me.

 

[Anarchist420]

Somehow I bet that doesn't keep you from pirating the shit out of them.

It absolutely does. I've bought 1 CD in the short time since the DoJ started cracking down. It's like only the 6th audio CD I've bought in my whole life.

 

[alent1234]

i have pinocchio on blu ray along with one or two other Disney ones, and they look amazing and a lot better than the non-digitally improved ones i have

 

[Fallen Kell]

So you've done a comparison between the raw uncompressed footage to the Blu-ray version? What display were you viewing this on that you could tell the difference?

The better question is what projector and film were you using to show the movie/compare with the digital version, and what projector/display did you use for the digital version?

 

[sm625]

lol I am still happy with 100 kbps. Most of the content out there isnt worth messing with all the extra bits. Unless it is something you really like and will watch more than once.

 

[A5]

Yep. The artifacts bug the hell out of me, but I guess when HDTVs are so shitty it doesn't bother most people. Or since they buy into the 1080p marketing gimmick they don't care about quality. I'd much rather have 800x600p lossless than 1920x1080p lossy. I realize that the detail would be far less, but what good does detail do if you have a lot of compression artifacts?It doesn't take much of a display to see all of the compression artifacts. The detail would be amazing, but only if it was without compression artifacts. Further, I've observed a large difference when I watch a recorded video with FRAPS without RGB lossless checked vs. with it checked. It takes a lot more space, but it's worth every bit (pun intended).

Imagine if GPU IHVs lossily compressed RGBA backbuffer precision (or even if they started using RGB7 front buffers)--the artifacts would be noticeable left and right (especially the more the resolution was) and in the case they used lossy depth buffer compression, long ass depth ranges wouldn't look as good. Even with the best color dithering techniques like 3dfx did, most people would be able to observe the difference. We can already see how bad lossy textures look (some 4:1 S3TC textures look downright awful). Textures would be a lot smaller if they were lossless, but there would be no compression artifacts.

If there is audio I'm not interested in, then I don't really care if it's an MP3 and I probably wouldn't pick up the difference. However, lossy video has outlived its usefulness since we don't need all of the detail of 1080p. 720p lossless video would provide sufficient detail for me.

You're probably seeing DNR, not compression artifacts. If you're seeing compression artifacts, you should sit further away from your screen

 

[alfa147x]

I just watched Lion King @ 1080p. I don't know if I like it. It was too cartoony. I don't remember it being so fake! It could also be that it's been about 10 - 15 years since I've seen it.

 

[alent1234]

i think it was one of the last hand drawn cartoons or at most it was only 2d CGI

i don't remember who made the first 3d CGI movie but i remember watching toy story and thinking it was fake as well. at least compared to toy story 3 that had a lot more lighting and nice details