I find it interesting that people are resisting Blu-ray, especially here, in this forum. Here are some points to consider:
1. Even at full HD, you STILL aren’t seeing all of the detail in the print, in terms of resolution and color depth. But BD is a much closer approximation.
2. Compression artifacts are virtually nonexistent in a well-authored BD, whereas you can almost always find them on a DVD. (even Criterions!)
3. Audio quality on a BD is (typically) FAR superior to the Dolby Digital audio on a DVD, provided that one of the newer codecs is used. (or PCM)
Yes, there are many ways to trash an image (edge enhancement, poor color correction, bad compression, etc) and these problems are exacerbated by HD, but that’s beside the point. The simple truth is that a properly-treated BD viewed on a calibrated, high-quality monitor is a more accurate representation of the print. Period.
Personally, I can’t really separate the image and sound quality from the film viewing experience.
All that said, there is no reason to throw away your DVD collection. The upsampling chips in the better transports (such as the PS3) are remarkable, and provide a perfectly adequate experience.
Let me put it this way, in today’s world where we have the technology to make a film as crisp and good-looking as possible we should take advantage of that technology, yet at the same time we must try to preserve the authenticity of the film. There needs to be a middle ground.
I seriously think the main reason a lot of people are against Blu-ray is because they can’t afford it right now and are trying to convince themselves and others that what they have currently is better than the new technology. The human brain works in funny ways, me thinks.
I wouldn’t necessarily consider myself a cinephile, but I have a huge addiction to a good looking picture.
I hate watching DVD’s, and when I watch TV, I can only watch the HD channels.
A good looking transfer is just as important to me as the film itself. That and the audio, of course; they go hand in hand.
I like both camps, Blu-Ray and film, and thus I have both: a PS3 through a 58-inch plasma, and a Xenon 16mm projector with Cinemascope capability.
Lest anyone think I am a rich man with a nice country estate to put these toys in, nothing could be further from the truth. I live in a small apartment in Washington DC and the 16mm setup is quite mad under such circumstances, but I love it enough that I don’t care.
Blu-Ray is not about ‘the format’; it is about the esthetics, about the re-mastering of the films.
One needs to hold true to the notion that there should be whatever grain is in the original film, as opposed to the relentless digital ‘cleaning’ of the film, to the point that it looks neither like film nor like video. That to me is the crucial, and only, issue about Blu-Ray. It is, to this day, the highest quality home display format available, unless you run 35mm at home (some people do.)
16mm is interesting, esthetically, because it doesn’t look like 35mm, but it looks like film a lot more than a DVD does, and if that sounds terribly obvious, I don’t think it necessarily is.
Watching “On the Waterfront” in 16mm really emphasizes the gritty, noir look of the film in ways that DVDs can’t match. Yet Blu-Ray I imagine will blow the print away in terms of absolute resolution (assuming it has been mastered from fine-grain 35-mil parts.) So there are trade-offs, but as long as they are trade-offs that don’t affect your viewing pleasure, then it comes down to what you like or can live with.
For me 16mm is a completely different ‘beast’ in that it is cumbersome, the sound is barely adequate on optical tracks, but it has power. The power of the organic, the same power a 35mm print in a theatre has. Every time a print is run, that is one less run left in the life of it. You think about such things when you run film. Not when you pop in a DVD.
In the end, much like a good song played on a cheap little radio, a fine film can survive just about any shortcoming in its screening and still be enjoyable, but it is nice to have it shown well. I think that is one thing we can all agree on.
Theres no denying a pretty image is great to look at, but it should never distract from the art form. Film is a visual medium, yes, in that you are SEEING the things that are going on. That doesn’t mean every image needs to look sharp and crisp. A film that looks like it was made by an amateur filmmaker or on a shoestring budget should not be discounted if what’s going on is brilliant artistry. Filmmakers need not be technically proficient. Look at the films of John Cassavetes. They are filled with imperfections but while watching one you realize how little technical considerations actually matter.
That said I do agree with the David Lynch school of thought that you shouldn’t watch movies on your FUCKING PHONE. And of course when replicating the cinematic experience you probably don’t want a 20" TV either. But there are a lot of movies where this doesn’t matter.
A good movie is a good movie, whether you watch it on Blu-Ray or on a portable DVD player.
To be perfectly honest, I’ll see a movie that I really want to see however it’s most available. If it’s in print and on blu-ray, I’ll probably see it in that format. But if it’s out of print VHS, and there happens to be a VHS rip online or something, hell, I’ll take it that way too.
I guess it depends on just how fussy a person is about such things. Personally, having been a music-head long before I was into film, I’m used to listening to less-than-pristine versions of limited recordings. I remember gladly listening to dubbed cassettes of collected Pavement ephemera long before it all started getting released on the deluxe CD reissues from Matador. Recently, I’ve been listening primarily to vinyl rips of obscure albums that will probably never even see CD releases. To me, it’s more about experiencing the thing in the first place than what quality the experience comes to me in.
Pavement is going to reunite next year Bolo.
Pavement is going to reunite next year Bolo.
Unless it leads to the creation of an album, I couldn’t care less. I understand if the less-employed members need a payday or something, but I can’t stand these reunions where it’s just about digging up the old bones, playing a few gigs, and and then dropping it again. Seeing them become a gen-x nostalgia trip saddens me.
I guess, if we’re talking in audio terms, I would look at picture quality issues in terms of mono/stereo. The musicians and producer have chosen to make an album or song in one of those two formats. If you take a stereo recording, and play it through a mono system, you’ll get something other than what the artists intended.
Personally, I don’t love Playtime or Lawrence of Arabia, but if I get the chance to see either of those on 70mm, I’m going to do it pronto. I’d also lay my money down to see How the West Was Won in Cinerama, even if the movie is mediocre. I’m happy to have seen Lawrence and Playtime on very nice DVD transfers, but I won’t kid myself into thinking that I’ve seen them as they were intended to be seen. In my living room? On a TV? Even projected on my wall? No. These films were meant to be blown up on to gigantic screens so that every inch of precious detail could be soaked in.
its just more, and more, and more, and more, and more technology. today blu-ray, tomorrow something else only slightly better, as blu-ray is to dvd.
my movie-watching friend has a home theater with a screen and everything. he’s got blu-ray. just got a brand spanking new digital projector too. i have great fun watching movies with him, and its a great experience. but blu-ray quality doesnt make me drop to my knees with a tear in my eye. we watch regular dvds on his projector also, and its pretty much the same experience — flawless.
but at the end of the day, we’re not watching “star wars”. so its not like we’re trying to pick up the perfect reproductive quality of a cg light saber or something. if youre talking extensive digital graphics and stuff like that, THEN you have a great argument for blu-ray. animation. video games. why would i want to obsess over the high tech digital crispness of an image of orson welles in “the third man”? at a certain point, it ceases to be that which it was, and starts to be something completely different.
It seems like the frame rate is effected with blu ray too. Rather than 24 it seems to be 29, and that looks disgusting for some films. Does anyone else notice this?
try to watch Nuri bilge ceylan’s three monkees..was shot with a cinealta HD pro…the lighting is amazing, not only helps the story but it make it even better…
a big YES on that frame rate complaint. that same friend showed me one of the first blu-ray discs he got just as a sample. it was “dr. no”. i was shocked, because it looked exactly like video. it didnt look like a film at all. that disgusted me. maybe that first experience put me off on the wrong foot with blu-ray immediately.
Bobby,
You have the right perspective in that, yes, an overly processed Blu-Ray disc will ruin the film look. It unfortunately seems to stem at least partially from a whole lot of internet ‘reviewers’ who comment constantly about a film looking ‘grainy’ as if that is abnormal and something that should be removed along with the real blemishes like scratches or other deterioration.
We are in danger of the ‘video-heads’ determining the look of classic films on Blu-Ray, and that is a dangerous path indeed, for once the studios have done their digital masters for the Blu-Ray market, they ain’t likely to re-master them again in the near future.
I understand that “Gangs of New York” is a particularly ghastly example of how wrong you can go in terms of processing, as the Blu-Ray comments have been very bad indeed.
And so, by some perverse, inverted logic, sometimes the regular DVD releases wind up looking more pleasing, grain and all.
Warner Brothers deserve an award for the job they did on “The Searchers.”
They spent a lot of money restoring and re-timing the original VistaVision separation parts which had shrunk badly and created an absolutely stunning Blu-Ray master of this fine film. To see the 35mm horizontally run negative (two full frames at a time) in such glory on a BR disc is, to me, a master class in how this ‘marriage’ works at its best. Other studios would be wise to emulate it.
You guys realize that HD is 23.98 fps. I don’t know why you’re saying its 29 fps (which is NTSC). If you’re having trouble with how a BD looks, I can assure you it’s not the frame rate. It may be your television – do you have a 1080p or 720i TV?
i thought HD was adjustable as a frame rate. like those 24p cameras that could shoot that way or in 29 if you wanted it to.
but still, i question. because that “dr no” blu-ray sure looked like an inconsistency with frame rate, not resolution (though of course it was extremely sharp and clean, unnaturally so even). i know the difference between 24 and 29 intimately, just like i know the difference between film and video. its burned into my soul from countless hours of viewing, same as im sure everyone else on this site knows it. and what i saw on that “dr no” blu-ray sure didnt look like 24, and it didnt look like a film print. thats all im saying. and all i care about is the look, not technicalities. 24 means nothing to me if it looks like 29 for whatever reason
You’re confusing two different things. When you’re shooting, a camera can shoot at any rate you want it to. It’s all a matter of how fast you want the film passing through the gate (for instance, if you wanted to shoot in slow motion). But in terms of transferring to the digital world and telecine, the 3-2 pulldown, etc. – you have three formats: NTSC (roughly 30 fps), PAL (roughly 25), and HD (roughly 24). All standard def video in the US is NTSC whereas PAL is mostly Europe. For NTSC, b/c of the 3-2 pulldown, you can have drop frame and non-drop frame. Most features are transferred as drop frame (this is for broadcast reasons). But in the HD world, there is no drop or non-drop frame issues – no NTSC or PAL. This is way more technical than anyone needs to know and to be honest, I’m skating the line of what I know what I’m talking about. But I can tell you that whatever issues you’re having, it doesn’t have anything to do with variable frame rate of the video.
In addition to fps output from the disc/player, the refresh rate of your TV would also be a factor.
This is a function of the TV set, not the Blu-ray player. Sony calls it MotionFlow. Samsung calls it AMP. Others call it by other names. I think Sony’s have 3 levels: Off, Standard, and High (?). I think that Samsungs may have 4 levels. Some people hate the effect, some love it. It has also been nick-named “The Soap Opera Effect”, since most soap operas are videod and have a “smoother” appearance than material that was originally done on 24 fps movie film.
I have read where a lot of people who hate it for movies like to use it watching something like live football. Where it makes a movie look too “slick” and artificial, it can make something like football better with less motion blur.
I used to be a picture quality snob to the point of refusing to buy a dvd unless it was progressively coded. Then a few years ago I broke down and bought all of Bunuel’s Mexican studio films while in Mexico. The dvd images were total shit. I watched them all in one week and it was the greatest home video viewing experience of my life. Cured me of my fetish.
For the moment, I don’t think I would buy a Blu-Ray Player. I have around 335 DVDs I think and something like a hundred, hundred fifty, more or less of tapes. These days, I get my tapes used. I don’t make a lot of money, so I don’t think I would replace all my movies with Blu-Ray, not to mention the fact that Blu-Ray discs and players costs more. After seeing a fair number of restored films with better picture and sound, I do appreciate the effort the technicians who restore DVDs do and I think it does offer you a glimpse of how possibly the filmmakers wanted you to see the film, such as if was done a few years ago or a few decades ago or more. However, growing up first as a child with going to the movies, then seeing films on videotape, it’s much better to see that than not to see films at all. If you have never seen a film in your life or have watched very few films, you may not have the motivation to explore not just different formats of how you can watch a film, ( Blu-Ray, DVD, tape, film, TV ), so it’s better to see films in any format, at least at first. I’ve seen films such as “Lawrence of Arabia” and “La Dolce Vita” on tape before I owned them on DVD and allthough I badly wanted to see them as they were meant to be seen, I’m glad I got into them at the time that I did which would, in turn, make me want to watch them in their original aspect ratio, also with better sound and picture. Also, as people have been mentioning, sometimes you can’t get a copy of a movie on a format such as DVD and might have to settle for a tape, but that’s better than not watching it at all. For the moment, I love DVDs the most, which with the original aspect ratios, picture and sound, have behind the scenes featurettes, commentaries, deleted scenes and trailers for the film. Also, now I think that DVDs are becoming or will become more affordable, based on the fact that Blu-Ray is now out there. That will allow me to buy more DVDs, which allows me to watch more movies and get more access to movies. As a side note, I think someone mentioned libraries and I think that, with a really good library, you can see a lot of great films for no cost at all. So, I guess if I had a lot of money, I might buy a Blu-Ray player, but for the moment, I am glad for what I’ve allready got. I think I heard that a Blu-Ray player plays regular DVDs too, but even if that is the case, I’m probably not going out to rush to buy one. I have replaced a few of my tapes, because I wanted a better viewing experience with DVDs and I have bought newer editions of older editions of DVDs, some of which were Criterion such as “High and Low.” Also, I have a pretty terrible copy of “Repulsion” that is not published by Criterion, which I will probably replace with the Criterion one, not to mention the fact that it has a commentary by Roman Polanski and Catherine Deneuve.
Patricia
I think if you really want to see the picture then you see it. Even if it’s in poor quality, if that’s the only way to see it then why let that stop you? For me it all depends on if I can’t find a copy that any better, if not… then I do with what I have!