Movies people say "Should" look good on Blu-ray

[Beta Man]

Not to pick on Pat, but I saw this post in a thread discussing Juraissic Park potentially coming to blu-ray, and it echoed SO MANY other posts I've read about The Dark Knight, LOTR, and even Tropic Thunder.......

Here was the comment (again, not picking on Pat! )

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

JP on BD should look very good indeed, can't wait

I'm confused to why people would say this...... Like LOTR should look AMAZING on blu-ray...... The Abyss should look FANTASTIC on blu-ray..... Dune should look OUTSTANDING on Blu-ray...... Running Man should look INCREDIBLE on blu-ray.... ETC ETC ETC.....

I look at it this way...... If all of this is true, Shouldn't "Total Recall" and "Terminator 2" look "Unbelievable" on blu-ray??


Bad transfers happen to movies that have a lot of potential...... just like comedies etc. that people wouldn't expect much from, often have outstanding AQ/PQ

Wouldn't EVERYTHING shot on film (not some T.V. shows obviously) have the potential to look amazing, just as everything has the potential to disappoint (and earn its spot in one of our countless "most dissapointing Blu-ray" threads!!!! )

Just my thoughts......

[Marine Mike]

Hear, hear, good sir!

My personal thoughts are that all movies should look good on Blu-Ray and disappointed when they don't.

[Blu-Ron]

Are you picking on Pat?

[RIPSeanTaylor21]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Not to pick on Pat, but I saw this post in a thread discussing Juraissic Park potentially coming to blu-ray, and it echoed SO MANY other posts I've read about The Dark Knight, LOTR, and even Tropic Thunder.......

Here was the comment (again, not picking on Pat! )



I'm confused to why people would say this...... Like LOTR should look AMAZING on blu-ray...... The Abyss should look FANTASTIC on blu-ray..... Dune should look OUTSTANDING on Blu-ray...... Running Man should look INCREDIBLE on blu-ray.... ETC ETC ETC.....

I look at it this way...... If all of this is true, Shouldn't "Total Recall" and "Terminator 2" look "Unbelievable" on blu-ray??


Bad transfers happen to movies that have a lot of potential...... just like comedies etc. that people wouldn't expect much from, often have outstanding AQ/PQ

Wouldn't EVERYTHING shot on film (not some T.V. shows obviously) have the potential to look amazing, just as everything has the potential to disappoint (and earn its spot in one of our countless "most dissapointing Blu-ray" threads!!!! )

Just my thoughts......

KING KONG

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by RIPSeanTaylor21

KING KONG

I'm trying to determine if you read the post

[Teabaggins]

I think people say "this should look amazing on BD" if they were impressed by the visuals and the way the movie was shot in SD.

doesn't mean it will be transferred well but that is probably what they are basing it on

[Blu-Ron]

Originally Posted by Teabaggins

I think people say "this should look amazing on BD" if they were impressed by the visuals and the way the movie was shot in SD.

doesn't mean it will be transferred well but that is probably what they are basing it on

+1

Personally, I can't wait for Blair Witch Project. I'll look sweet!

[ThriceBB]

yeah.. i think people decide whether it should look great or not based on the visual effects. like you said.. comedies should look great and everything should look great, but its the movies that really show off the visual effects that stand out. like LOTR, the visuals were amazing on SD, so the blu ray should be AMAZING

[SkillzthatKillz]

movies that are visually stunning (like LOTR, Star Wars, TDK, JP, etc.) are the ones that should stand out on Blu-ray. sure, every movie should have fine detail and color reproduction, but even if a movie like 40 year old virgin has an incredible transfer, its not going to be awe inspiring like the movies listed above. so, on that, visually stunning movies are ones that will tend to impress people and sell the format.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I'm trying to determine if you read the post

He didn't.

[DeeChizzle]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it all comes down to the quality that the movie was filmed in and whether or not the film source has been kept in good shape over the years.

The special effects for T2 were mindblowing during it's time but CGI has come a long way since. I think I've seen B movies with special effects as good as the ones displayed in T2.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Wouldn't EVERYTHING shot on film (not some T.V. shows obviously) have the potential to look amazing, just as everything has the potential to disappoint.

The situation is not that simple. So many variables are involved.

Putting it bluntly, a lot of comments like "this movie should look freaking great " are often ill-informed. Comments like that are mere guesses.

For a movie to really look great on Blu-ray, first of all the original cinematography (or videography) had to be well executed and properly preserved on film (or video). Bad focus, poor lighting, odd style choices and more will knock the quality of the original camera elements down a peg or two or more.

Then you have to figure in the variable of how much work and money a studio is willing to invest in a particular title to create a proper HD transfer. Obviously, there's quite a few Blu-ray titles out there that merely re-used old HD telecine transfers to save money.

Another variable: the disc can be released on a BD-25 or a more expensive to replicate BD-50 disc.

The only movies I consider a reasonably safe bet to look very good on Blu-ray are more recent films that had digital intermediates used in their original post production process. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy falls into that category since a DI was used on all three.

Modern DI techniques can be used on older movies, and have been in certain cases, like Bladerunner. The technique was pushed to glorious overkill with Baraka.

[DavePS3]

Many people think all 1080p is equal... that all Blu_ray is equal. It's not. If your source is mediocre, your result is also mediocre in comparison.

Examples... a $2000.00 LCD 1080p projo is nowhere near a $15,000.00 DLP 1080p or for that matter, even a DLP 720p. Many people get spoiled by some of the best Blu-Ray's out there and expect older films to look just as good. Many just don't BUT they still look a lot better than their SD counterparts even when bumped up to 1080p. So... if you had a fairly decent looking film on SD and heard it's coming out on Blu' there's a reasonable assumtion that the Blu' SHOULD look great. ...and it would compared to the SD... but maybe not compared to say, Iron Man or Baraka.

[Lucy Diamond]

D.e.b.s!!!!

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by Lucy Diamond

D.e.b.s!!!!

I second this.

So far I have no plans of buying non-visual orientated blurays.

[Blu Titan]

King Kong should look fantastic.

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by RIPSeanTaylor21

KING KONG

...ain't got nothin on me?

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I look at it this way...... If all of this is true, Shouldn't "Total Recall" and "Terminator 2" look "Unbelievable" on blu-ray??


Bad transfers happen to movies that have a lot of potential....

If the UK version of Total Recall looks great, there is no reason the US version shouldn't be its equal. (this statement is hearsay, I have not seen the UK version but have read several others who vouch for it)

[dadkins]

While a "movie" may look amazing at the theater, the person(s) incharge of the transfer can either do a great job or completely botch it.

It does seem that nearly every new release becomes the new reference title.
At this rate, pretty soon the BD will exceed you being there in person on the set!
Better than real!!!1