Top 40 movies NOT on blu-ray

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Fox5
The top 25 list is based off of the audio/visual quality of the movie and not whether the movie is good. Thus, it contains a lot of tripe that will be forgotten in a few years.

The top 40 list basically just listed off a bunch of classics, most of which probably wouldn't see an improvement in picture quality going from dvd to blu-ray. Old films are noisy as hell (picture wise), why would I want to see all the imperfections?

Eh? Have you seen some of the good restorations that have been done on older movies? Some of them are fantastic and make the movie feel brand new. Check out the comparison pictures for The Robe http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb...1130918&highlight=robe Now that is what a good restoration to Blu-ray can do for you; absolutely stunning!

KT

Was the DVD treated the same way as the blu-ray? If not, then the picture difference is primarily the restoration/remastering and not any advantages afforded by blu-ray.

What are you arguing here, that 720x480 looks just as good as 1920x1080? That's simply a logically indefensible argument.

bingo, 0.3megapixel vs 2megapixel is not something you can sniff at. old classics restored have far more detail than dvd can capture. those pictures show exactly what a raw dvd frame is like. in motion the lack of detail is less apparent, but it means the bluray looks all the more better in motion as well. pause a dvd and look at it close up and you'll see, theres not much there. but it is 0.3megapixels after all.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Fox5
The top 25 list is based off of the audio/visual quality of the movie and not whether the movie is good. Thus, it contains a lot of tripe that will be forgotten in a few years.

The top 40 list basically just listed off a bunch of classics, most of which probably wouldn't see an improvement in picture quality going from dvd to blu-ray. Old films are noisy as hell (picture wise), why would I want to see all the imperfections?

Eh? Have you seen some of the good restorations that have been done on older movies? Some of them are fantastic and make the movie feel brand new. Check out the comparison pictures for The Robe http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb...1130918&highlight=robe Now that is what a good restoration to Blu-ray can do for you; absolutely stunning!

KT

Was the DVD treated the same way as the blu-ray? If not, then the picture difference is primarily the restoration/remastering and not any advantages afforded by blu-ray.

What are you arguing here, that 720x480 looks just as good as 1920x1080? That's simply a logically indefensible argument.

bingo, 0.3megapixel vs 2megapixel is not something you can sniff at. old classics restored have far more detail than dvd can capture. those pictures show exactly what a raw dvd frame is like. in motion the lack of detail is less apparent, but it means the bluray looks all the more better in motion as well. pause a dvd and look at it close up and you'll see, theres not much there. but it is 0.3megapixels after all.

I think that majority of people have no idea how much detail is in a camera lense. Even the older ones so they think they are all going to look like crap.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Fox5
The top 25 list is based off of the audio/visual quality of the movie and not whether the movie is good. Thus, it contains a lot of tripe that will be forgotten in a few years.

The top 40 list basically just listed off a bunch of classics, most of which probably wouldn't see an improvement in picture quality going from dvd to blu-ray. Old films are noisy as hell (picture wise), why would I want to see all the imperfections?

Eh? Have you seen some of the good restorations that have been done on older movies? Some of them are fantastic and make the movie feel brand new. Check out the comparison pictures for The Robe http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb...1130918&highlight=robe Now that is what a good restoration to Blu-ray can do for you; absolutely stunning!

KT

Was the DVD treated the same way as the blu-ray? If not, then the picture difference is primarily the restoration/remastering and not any advantages afforded by blu-ray.

What are you arguing here, that 720x480 looks just as good as 1920x1080? That's simply a logically indefensible argument.

How about we really make his head explode by telling him that the amount of detail available in 35mm stock is greater than even current HD can offer. As GREAT as classic films have looked when remastered at 1920x1080 (something impossible for DVD--I'm baffled as to how Fox does not understand this), they will arguably look even better in the next gen HD format.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: sswingle

Originally posted by: Arcadio
I can't wait for LOTR or Jurassic Park on Bluray.

LOTR is coming out, but just the theatrical version at first. You can pre-order for $70 on amazon. They want everyone to rush out and buy it, and then later re-release it yet again with the extended cut. Grrrrr

And Jackson said he wouldn't pull that crap. It would fit with seamless branching so the only motivation is $$. Oh well, I'll get it anyway.

I didn't know Gladiator and Braveheart were coming out. I just became physically aroused.

I doubt Peter Jackson controls that type of stuff.

 

[TehMac]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but why is Casablanca on the top 25 blu-ray list?

It's a B&W film, I think it's awesome, but wtf, it was shot with a 75mm camera, why would you buy it for blu-ray as opposed to DVD?

 

[char2009]

just t=started to buy blu ray last month, the quality is a big big difference

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I dont have a boner for Blu-ray...

Pics or shens.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: char2009
just t=started to buy blu ray last month, the quality is a big big difference

Even for Black and white films?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Fox5
The top 25 list is based off of the audio/visual quality of the movie and not whether the movie is good. Thus, it contains a lot of tripe that will be forgotten in a few years.

The top 40 list basically just listed off a bunch of classics, most of which probably wouldn't see an improvement in picture quality going from dvd to blu-ray. Old films are noisy as hell (picture wise), why would I want to see all the imperfections?

Eh? Have you seen some of the good restorations that have been done on older movies? Some of them are fantastic and make the movie feel brand new. Check out the comparison pictures for The Robe http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb...1130918&highlight=robe Now that is what a good restoration to Blu-ray can do for you; absolutely stunning!

KT

Was the DVD treated the same way as the blu-ray? If not, then the picture difference is primarily the restoration/remastering and not any advantages afforded by blu-ray.

What are you arguing here, that 720x480 looks just as good as 1920x1080? That's simply a logically indefensible argument.

How about we really make his head explode by telling him that the amount of detail available in 35mm stock is greater than even current HD can offer. As GREAT as classic films have looked when remastered at 1920x1080 (something impossible for DVD--I'm baffled as to how Fox does not understand this), they will arguably look even better in the next gen HD format.

Well, I've never seen high-quality versions of old films, so my only experience is that everything made in film before 1980 looks like crap.
My experience with HD (besides video games, where I feel even 1920x1080 is too low) is limited to:
OTA HD broadcasts - They look good, but to my eyes often only on par with what an upscaling dvd player does. Sometimes much better.
And I have a blu-ray player in my HTPC, and I've only watched two movies on it. Meet the Spartans, an absolutely horrible movie that I'm sure didn't show off the format, and Watchmen. Watchmen didn't impress either, the movie was good, but it didn't look stunningly high res, and even had noticeable color banding in some scenes. Of course, I'm assuming the version of PowerDVD 7 that came free with my blu-ray drive doesn't downscale the video to 480p due to not being a full version, though that would explain why the two blu-rays I've seen didn't look better than dvds.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Fox5
The top 25 list is based off of the audio/visual quality of the movie and not whether the movie is good. Thus, it contains a lot of tripe that will be forgotten in a few years.

The top 40 list basically just listed off a bunch of classics, most of which probably wouldn't see an improvement in picture quality going from dvd to blu-ray. Old films are noisy as hell (picture wise), why would I want to see all the imperfections?

Eh? Have you seen some of the good restorations that have been done on older movies? Some of them are fantastic and make the movie feel brand new. Check out the comparison pictures for The Robe http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb...1130918&highlight=robe Now that is what a good restoration to Blu-ray can do for you; absolutely stunning!

KT

Was the DVD treated the same way as the blu-ray? If not, then the picture difference is primarily the restoration/remastering and not any advantages afforded by blu-ray.

What are you arguing here, that 720x480 looks just as good as 1920x1080? That's simply a logically indefensible argument.

How about we really make his head explode by telling him that the amount of detail available in 35mm stock is greater than even current HD can offer. As GREAT as classic films have looked when remastered at 1920x1080 (something impossible for DVD--I'm baffled as to how Fox does not understand this), they will arguably look even better in the next gen HD format.

Well, I've never seen high-quality versions of old films, so my only experience is that everything made in film before 1980 looks like crap.
My experience with HD (besides video games, where I feel even 1920x1080 is too low) is limited to:
OTA HD broadcasts - They look good, but to my eyes often only on par with what an upscaling dvd player does. Sometimes much better.
And I have a blu-ray player in my HTPC, and I've only watched two movies on it. Meet the Spartans, an absolutely horrible movie that I'm sure didn't show off the format, and Watchmen. Watchmen didn't impress either, the movie was good, but it didn't look stunningly high res, and even had noticeable color banding in some scenes. Of course, I'm assuming the version of PowerDVD 7 that came free with my blu-ray drive doesn't downscale the video to 480p due to not being a full version, though that would explain why the two blu-rays I've seen didn't look better than dvds.

sounds like you are doing it wrong somewhere a long the line. 6 times the detail would show up unless you are doing it wrong, or have a sh*t tv screen. i hope its not one of those crt "hdtvs" that were sold near the end of crts time in stores. old restored films can look amazing, far better than any dvd upscale, just a matter of pixels. dvd cant compete. bluray quality depends like dvd on the effort they put into the transfer, esp older films. but thats not new. always check review sites before purchase. i'm thinking you should just get a cheap bluray player, something you did is not working right with your htpc😛
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1164767
the people that know, find that watchmens video quality is excellent. screen shots included.
in the quality lineup its tier 1 gold
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: char2009
just t=started to buy blu ray last month, the quality is a big big difference

Even for Black and white films?

The Day The Earth Stood Still.

/discussion

KT

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: lokiju

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Who would actually buy the Star Wars prequels other than the most hardcore Star Wars fans? They were all shitty movies.

Each of the 3 new ones individually out-grossed any of the individual old ones.

Hard to claim people didn't like them.

It helps that movie tickets cost like 4x as much as they did when the old ones were released.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: sswingle

Originally posted by: Arcadio
I can't wait for LOTR or Jurassic Park on Bluray.

LOTR is coming out, but just the theatrical version at first. You can pre-order for $70 on amazon. They want everyone to rush out and buy it, and then later re-release it yet again with the extended cut. Grrrrr

And Jackson said he wouldn't pull that crap. It would fit with seamless branching so the only motivation is $$. Oh well, I'll get it anyway.

I didn't know Gladiator and Braveheart were coming out. I just became physically aroused.

I doubt Peter Jackson controls that type of stuff.

But they can ask him to do some kind of commentary or extra and he can tell them to fuck themselves. I don't really care though, it'll just be something else for my wife to give me a hard time about when I buy two MORE versions. 🙁

 

[TehMac]

I see. Well the links posted are quite fascinating. It always seemed to me like a lot of the footage I saw from the 60's was "pixelized HD" if that makes sense.

It's not too surprising to me that the 35 mm's capacity was not fully realized at least for home theater.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Fox5
The top 25 list is based off of the audio/visual quality of the movie and not whether the movie is good. Thus, it contains a lot of tripe that will be forgotten in a few years.

The top 40 list basically just listed off a bunch of classics, most of which probably wouldn't see an improvement in picture quality going from dvd to blu-ray. Old films are noisy as hell (picture wise), why would I want to see all the imperfections?

Eh? Have you seen some of the good restorations that have been done on older movies? Some of them are fantastic and make the movie feel brand new. Check out the comparison pictures for The Robe http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb...1130918&highlight=robe Now that is what a good restoration to Blu-ray can do for you; absolutely stunning!

KT

Was the DVD treated the same way as the blu-ray? If not, then the picture difference is primarily the restoration/remastering and not any advantages afforded by blu-ray.

What are you arguing here, that 720x480 looks just as good as 1920x1080? That's simply a logically indefensible argument.

How about we really make his head explode by telling him that the amount of detail available in 35mm stock is greater than even current HD can offer. As GREAT as classic films have looked when remastered at 1920x1080 (something impossible for DVD--I'm baffled as to how Fox does not understand this), they will arguably look even better in the next gen HD format.

Well, I've never seen high-quality versions of old films, so my only experience is that everything made in film before 1980 looks like crap.
My experience with HD (besides video games, where I feel even 1920x1080 is too low) is limited to:
OTA HD broadcasts - They look good, but to my eyes often only on par with what an upscaling dvd player does. Sometimes much better.
And I have a blu-ray player in my HTPC, and I've only watched two movies on it. Meet the Spartans, an absolutely horrible movie that I'm sure didn't show off the format, and Watchmen. Watchmen didn't impress either, the movie was good, but it didn't look stunningly high res, and even had noticeable color banding in some scenes. Of course, I'm assuming the version of PowerDVD 7 that came free with my blu-ray drive doesn't downscale the video to 480p due to not being a full version, though that would explain why the two blu-rays I've seen didn't look better than dvds.

sounds like you are doing it wrong somewhere a long the line. 6 times the detail would show up unless you are doing it wrong, or have a sh*t tv screen. i hope its not one of those crt "hdtvs" that were sold near the end of crts time in stores. old restored films can look amazing, far better than any dvd upscale, just a matter of pixels. dvd cant compete. bluray quality depends like dvd on the effort they put into the transfer, esp older films. but thats not new. always check review sites before purchase. i'm thinking you should just get a cheap bluray player, something you did is not working right with your htpc😛
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1164767
the people that know, find that watchmens video quality is excellent. screen shots included.
in the quality lineup its tier 1 gold
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342

Yep, those screenshots are exactly the picture I had. The movie had an annoying grain filter applied on it, so I bumped up the noise filter way high, but then it was too soft so I upped the softness all the way. I found the grain on the movie incredibly distracting.

And I saw it on both 1080P DLP and LCD tvs. Not top of the line, but rather recent sets.
Interesting to see a few people on that thread had the same complaints as I did about the picture quality. Heh, blu-ray still can't do full theater quality. Perhaps they could update the spec to use an even more advanced compression scheme?

 

[0roo0roo]

i dunno, its supposed to look like theres grain in it, its film, not digital video, and its highly processed and stylized image at that. so yes if you try to remove film grain you'll wipe out the image, i'm not sure why you'd want to do that though, it looks fine to me.

as for full theater quality, well no, but i seriously doubt the formats the limit, at this point its mostly peoples screen equipment thats limiting the quality of the images they see. perhaps when if ever we get 100" tvs in homes then the pixels will be spread too thin, but its no where near that point right now. many "1080p" screens render muck not close to that spec.

 

[Locut0s]

No rush, a Blu-Ray like any medium is only as good as its transfer. There are plenty of Blu-Rays out there that they have fucked up and look little better if not worse than their DVD counterparts.

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: Fox5

(Nested quotes sniped out)

Yep, those screenshots are exactly the picture I had. The movie had an annoying grain filter applied on it, so I bumped up the noise filter way high, but then it was too soft so I upped the softness all the way. I found the grain on the movie incredibly distracting.

And I saw it on both 1080P DLP and LCD tvs. Not top of the line, but rather recent sets.
Interesting to see a few people on that thread had the same complaints as I did about the picture quality. Heh, blu-ray still can't do full theater quality. Perhaps they could update the spec to use an even more advanced compression scheme?

wtf you can't tell that the blu-ray screenshots have a shit load more detail than the DVD ones? When I say above that a blu-ray is only as good as its transfer I mean it, but on average a good transfer means quality way better than DVD!!

 

[Kanalua]

Braveheart...would love to see that on BluRay...Have seen it in HD (1080i), but would love the surround sound and quality of bluray...

 

[GregGreen]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Yep, those screenshots are exactly the picture I had. The movie had an annoying grain filter applied on it, so I bumped up the noise filter way high, but then it was too soft so I upped the softness all the way. I found the grain on the movie incredibly distracting.

And I saw it on both 1080P DLP and LCD tvs. Not top of the line, but rather recent sets.
Interesting to see a few people on that thread had the same complaints as I did about the picture quality. Heh, blu-ray still can't do full theater quality. Perhaps they could update the spec to use an even more advanced compression scheme?

Why are you messing with settings like that? They should be set during calibration with DVE or something similar and never touched again (unless its early in your plasmas's lifespan, in which case you should do it again after 100 to 150 hours). YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
Why can't they just have a list of the movies instead of having to flip through one by one? Stupid

Agreed. There is no way I'm clicking through 40 movie titles one at a time.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
But they can ask him to do some kind of commentary or extra and he can tell them to fuck themselves.

DVD Maker: Mr Jackson, would you like to do commentary for our theatrical cut only releasE?

PJ: Fuck No! Go To Hell! Don't Leech my fans like that!

DVD Maker: We'll pay you $10,000 per disc plus royalties

PJ: Well.. the fans probably want an original release disc.. and an uncut disc.. OK!

 

[Shawn]

Jurassic Park is #1 for me.

 

[Ichinisan]

"THE BIG LEBOWSKI," dammit!

 

[herkulease]

Jurassic Park my #1 too.

I guessing we will see disney/pixar put out a Toy Story set either this fall or next spring to lead up to Toy Story 3.

I'm also waiting to see Vacation come out on bluray. The 20th anniversary edition had a really nice transfer.