red ray is next
then silver ray
then gold ray
Jasper, I’m sorry, but I disagree with you. What’s wrong with higher quality?
Savvy
the thing that is wrong with HD in general is that makeup has not accomadated it yet.
that is why the desperate house wives look 60 in HD
Den, hahahaha. Well, everything I’ve seen on HD looks fine (virtually), so…
UNLESS it’s running at 120 Hz or higher, which most Blurays are supposed to. I hate the fact that they put more frames into the image then what is necessary, thus giving it a hardly filmic feel at all. It’s just crazy to look at…
My TV ran at 60 Hz, though, and so it had a clear picture, but it still looked like a movie.
Savvy
Since late 2001 or early 2002 I have bought a lot of DVDs. I now have at least probably three hundred forty something or fifty something of movies on DVD. I’d hate to replace all of those movies with Blu-rays. A person I know has a Blu-ray player and they say it has an excellent picture and sound. A friend of mine recently bought one himself. I don’t know if I would buy a Blu-ray player even if the price went done. For the moment, I am content with having a DVD player. I also have bought a fair share of VHS tapes. I know that VHS does not have the greatest quality for picture and sound, but it provides me with the opportunity to watch films that I bought for a fairly cheap price and it’s also great to have a film you want to see or is hard to find rather than to not see it at all which would also go the same with DVDs. As Like2sleep points out, there will be something after Blu-ray as well. I think it as at least good to watch a film on DVD or VHS rather than not to watch films at all. I guess some people want the best film experience possible so they see Blu-ray as a step in that direction. So, I guess I would say it is a matter of personal preference. All I know is I don’t see myself replacing my film library with Blu-rays. I would have to spend more money and by that time, who knows? Blu-ray might become obsolete.
Like2Sleep: “Red Ray” is regular DVD! It has to do with the wavelength. Blue is a narrower wavelength than red, so more information can be read off of the same amount of space.
The biggest argument against Blu-Ray is that it is not significant enough of a format change for people to fully reinvest in. Sure, the quality IS, in fact, better, and for those people for whom that is important it becomes an essential upgrade, but the most significant difference between VHS and DVD was not the quality (which was a bigger quality difference than DVD and Blu-Ray is), but the change in format from magnetic strip to digital disc. The future in formatting is Internet and device streaming and digital copies, and distributors already know that and are starting the first moves towards it… they are waiting for the quality to become comparable to DVD in general before they finalize it. I for one am looking towards that trend in terms of my own ideas for my production company: I want to provide Internet distribution in the form of free streaming videos that can have digital copies downloaded onto computers and devices for a small fee, hard copies on POD (print-on-demand, which is where the publishing industry is going as well).
—PolarisDiB
the viewers eyesight is also a key matter because people can wake up believing they have good vision and the highest quality image is being seen without realizing their vision can be enhanced from an eye test.
I have heard a rumor, never found the evidence, that the Japanese already invented a hi-def so hi-def that it was sharper than the eye could see, causing disorientation and dizziness amongst viewers.
May not be real, but seems like the sort of thing that could happen.
—DiB
o.k bronze ray is next :O)
More like 3D (not to, you know, bring up another thread on that topic).
The formats are all about spectacle. The audience is all about accessibility.
—DiB
how could the japanese find that evidence if their eyes were not sharp enough?
Jasper:
Your writing tells me you don’t know what the resolution of motion picture film is.
A 35mm film frame can hold far more information than a Blu-Ray-encoded disc can resolve, and that includes even very early films. With Blu-Ray we get a little closer towards what the films look like, and it makes for a richer visual experience.
To say they weren’t “intended” to be shown in HiDef is based on wrong assumptions, since they have been shown in better than ‘HiDef’ in 35mm in theatres for decades.
Secondly, you ask “is Blu-Ray necessary”? To ask it in the context of it being a gimmick like 3-D makes no sense. Blu-Ray boosts the reproduction quality of the image, nothing more, nothing less. It simply comes down to whether you want to have it and pay for it or not.
DiB, this is just an assumption but I thought that real life was the highest of definitions?
There is a big difference between Blu-Ray releases of films and HD streams of TV shows.
I think the motivation behind this thread is the fear that blu-ray will dethrone DVD as the default format for films – that or the suspicion that the quality of a blu-ray disc is not as high as some people claim, perhaps a commingling of both.
As for me, I’m rather indifferent. Blu-ray isn’t that amazing, but there is a noticeable difference in quality when compared to a regular DVD.
for some films, the difference is huge. For others, the transition didn’t go as smooth. 9th gate, unforgiven don’t look that much different on blu ray than they do on dvd. but films like full metal jacket, 2001, the searchers, they all look exceptional.
People are just too scared to admit that the DVDs they’ve spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on are becoming outdated. But just because you buy a Blu-ray player doesn’t mean you have to abandon the DVD format. The transition doesn’t have to be so sudden. In my opinion, it’s freaking stupid to argue that Blu-ray is just not worth it. The difference is huge if you have a halfway-decent TV.
“To say they weren’t “intended” to be shown in HiDef is based on wrong assumptions, since they have been shown in better than ‘HiDef’ in 35mm in theatres for decades.”
Well, i admit i know nothing about any of this. Is it possible that the blu-ray transfers are just not being handled well on older films? I don’t even know if that makes sense.
“how could the japanese find that evidence if their eyes were not sharp enough?”
“DiB, this is just an assumption but I thought that real life was the highest of definitions?”
Which is why I find the claims dubious, but I believe it had the effect of a directional light right in the eyes.
Eh, I’mma gonna drop the story. Didn’t know why I bothered passing along what I do not even believe.
—PolarisDiB
JASPER: Blu-ray is unnecessary if you decide to go the streaming route through Netfix, otherwise if you have a 1080p TV/projector and a very good setup, then Blu-ray is great. Granted, you will see and hear things more noticeable on a modern action film than a classic film but it all depends on the viewer. If you’re fine with your DVD copy or fine watching it streaming, then you have no need to make the jump to Blu-ray.
DEN: I understand what you mean with DH and HD does bring out the pores especially makeup inconsistencies from the past. For example, Star Trek: The Original Series which looks great on Blu-ray but there are things that stood out that I never saw in the past such as the suits looking very rubbery (monsters) and makeup problems. But those things are going to happen.
HAL9000: I own nearly 5,000 DVD’s and over 400 Blu-ray. I’m not going to repurchase everything I own on Blu-ray. The fact that a Blu-ray can play DVD’s is great but for certain films, you will want to upgrade. For example, the late 70’s film “Saturday Night Fever” looks very dark and looks its age on DVD. When I got the Blu-ray, it was unbelievable…major improvement and colors were vibrant and look as almost as it was shot not long ago (but with people sporting 70’s clothing and hairstyles). But you don’t have to upgrade your whole collection. I’m not going to unless there is a major reason to, especially Criterion releases….if they add more content.
6000: I think their is fear by a lot of people who have to upgrade and continually upgrade because it happens so frequently now. Computers, operating systems, cell phones, video game consoles, etc. With new technology, what people will need to decide is if it’s worth it to them, is it within their budgets and what alternatives are there. I know quite a few people who went the digital streaming route and have no need for physical media anymore. Some people I know who don’t need a television anymore because they can watch what they want on their computers.
If there is one caveat for some people when it comes to Blu-ray, it’s not more of replacing your DVD’s because you don’t really have to…it all comes down to having to upgrade your whole system. When I went to Blu-ray, I knew immediately I needed a new receiver with HDMI ports that is capable of playing DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD. Then I had to upgrade my speakers from 5.1 to 7.2 because I wanted a more immersive sound. You don’t have to do this but if you want HD, you need a TV that supports it and a receiver that supports the audio.
Fortunately, there are good refurbs out there such as Onkyo’s and if you can’t spend a lot, fortunately Polks are great and Newegg.com always has weekly deals on speakers (Center, surrounds, fronts, subwoofers, etc.).
“A 35mm film frame can hold far more information than a Blu-Ray-encoded disc can resolve, and that includes even very early films.”
So what your saying is that Gone with the wind looked better in 1939 than it does today?
If you are than i agree, but there is no way that the filmakers in the 30’s could even imagine hi def, so how does it enhance the film?
“A 35mm film frame can hold far more information than a Blu-Ray-encoded disc can resolve, and that includes even very early films.”
So what your saying is that Gone with the wind looked better in 1939 than it does today?
If you are than i agree, but there is no way that the filmakers in the 30’s could even imagine hi def, so how does it enhance the film?
Yes, the 35mm print of Gone With The Wind looked better in 1939 than either the current DVD or Bleu-Ray (tee-hee) can look today. That is not subjective, it is fact.
Jasper…..
Film has higher resolution than Blu-Rays, so regular DVDs got even less out of the film image than Blu-Rays do.
With Blu-Rays, you now get more picture quality because the picture quality was always there to begin with in the film.
Film started out as a high-quality benchmark (35 and 65mm) for motion picture quality, and video is still struggling to catch up.
well i guess i just dont see how a movie that i watch in theaters is more high def than blu ray, because it isnt.
I still don’t buy Blu-Rays. I just don’t give a shit, honestly. I have a nice TV and a Blu-Ray player but…meh, regular DVD is perfectly fine for me. Sometimes I don’t like the look of Blu-Ray, really. When it becomes the standard, then I’ll buy it, but for now I’ll skip it.
Kudos to Criterion, however, for not charging more for the Blu-Ray.
I will end with this:
What Blu-Ray is capable of as a format, and what people want (or don’t want) to buy are two separate issues. One can perfectly well enjoy a great film on VHS if that’s what’s available.
BR does not have the resolution of 35mm film, but it is a step up from regular DVD.
If you feel a film shown (in 35mm) in a theatre is not looking better than a Blu-Ray, then I strongly suggest you complain to management, because it means one of the following:
The projectionist is not doing his job.
The equipment is not maintained.
The print is badly duplicated.
That new Japanese ultra-def process is rainbow ray
Blu-Ray delivers a luminescent hyper-reality that hurts my eyes, like watching What Dreams May Come again and again and again. I’m not talking about clarity, but sensory overload.
However, Blu-Ray as i understand it is backwards-compatible, meaning the machines can spin DVDs just dandy, so no qualms there.
My question is, when will it all stop and how many times are consumers willing to buy the same film for their collections in yet another format?
My favorite movie is North by Northwest. In the 25-odd years I’ve been collecting films, I have owned and worn out two VHS copies of this great Hitchcock classic, bought a DVD in one of the old Warner Bros. plastic “snapper” caes (a damned abomination, those things), got disgusted at the snapper case for snagging on the titles on either side of it, so I sold that when Warner released NxNW in a proper keepcase. When does the Blu-Ray come out? I don’t know.
By the same token, I try not to get caught in the “special edition” trap. I believe James Cameron’s Terminator 2, for example, has been released in something like 5 different editions — the Director’s Cut, the Special Edition, the Ultimate Edition, the Super-Whoopie edition, the New Edition, the Transition Edition on the Road to Perdition, etc. Just ridiculous.
Whew. That’s enuf.
Cheers,
Steve
www.CinemaUprising.Blogspot.com
Jasper Bleu
Anyone here feeling like blu-ray is unecessary? I dont understand why we need to see films like gone with the wind and casablanca in high def. I’m sure with some films it enhances the experience but i just hope that they arent planning on makeing a full conversion to blu-ray like they did with dvd from vhs.
I feel like it’s kinda sad that films that were never intended to be in any format like HD are being converted as such. And i really don’t understand how criterion of all people are putting such classics as the 400 blows and 8 1/2 out on blu ray. oh well.