Poor Quality Blu-ray discs

[scorsetinogilliam]

Originally Posted by Freekman

Predator. Too much grain.

dammit!
blu ray shows what's there, when they remove the grain we lose the theatre experience and a lot of detail, quit complaining about grain!

[surfdude12]

Robocop
Fugitive
Lethal Weapon
Total Recall

[msgohan]

Young Guns is the worst Blu-ray ever released. Prove me wrong.





The pixellated Warner releases like Full Metal Jacket don't look quite as bad from what I've seen.

[UFAlien]

Well, one that I'm unimpressed with is Black Christmas. It looks much better than the DVDs, but it still looks pretty bad. It's in bad need of restoration.

[Clark Kent]

At this point I rarely buy movies located in tiers 4 and 5 for picture quality unless they are never going to look good.

[RedZeppelin]

Originally Posted by Ray_Rogers

.
. . .I want all these titles to look like FILM instead of cheap-arse overprocessed video. . .

I'm new to BR, but that's the way I feel about processing too.

[Hi-Def Steve]

I don't think anything is worse than:

Max Fleischer's Gulliver's Travels

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by RedZeppelin

What is wrong with the Patton BR? I've been thinking of getting that one. But I don't own it on DVD so it wouldn't be a double dip.

Nothing is wrong with Patton looks great! Just read the review here and you will see that big +5 on the video. In fact if you go to most review sites other than The Digital Bits you will see that most loved the disc.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by msgohan

Young Guns is the worst Blu-ray ever released. Prove me wrong.
.

Haven't seen it on Blu-ray yet...... so I can't argue with you on basis of "transfer" but it's certainly not the worst Blu-ray release in terms of content!

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Blade runner has NOT got great transfer.It's got good-granted-but not great.If you watched it in cinemas when final cut was released,that was incredible.And judging from other BD releases,it was the transfer job to blame

2001 is great though

Statements like these remind me that some people on the net are just here to troll or maybe they are crazy. Either way, you sir are completely wrong. Many reviews would prove you incorrect.

[Disky76]

Originally Posted by colnscott

Has anyone bought a Blu-Ray disc only to find the quality of the picture is not much better than the DVD release ?

For example, "Stargate", "Independance Day"
.
It seems to me that some companies are using DVD source material / transfers rather than pay for a new transfer - This seems to undermine the whole point of the Hi-Def movie experience.
Compare this to a company like "The Criterion Collection" where you know that you will get stunning picture reproduction EVERY time.

Should we be on the look out for poor quality discs and make sure the distribution companies get to hear about this.

I use both Region 1 & 2 discs on my system. When I get what I consider to be a dud I check it against another region release - if both are equally dud quality I send them back.

What's your experience

I think that one's system can really bring out the best of Blu-Ray...but it can limit it as well. Sometimes, when playing a Blu-Ray on my back room Toshiba system, there are some Blu-Rays that don't necessarily look that much better than the DVD. And there are others still that remain stunning.

On my projector, however, I have not played a Blu-Ray that is anything short of amazing. Both Stargate and Independence Day - among others - play with a stunning visual quality that has been expected on the highest quality Blu-Rays.

Another thing to consider is when the film was made and how it was shot. Those two titles were made over a decade ago, and there is natural looking film grain present. Not every film is going to be crisp and shiny, nor should they be.

Even so, Blu-Ray is still the highest quality format out there, regardless of whether they blow you out of your seat, or if they are only a slight improvement over the DVD version. Because remember, a slight improvement is still an improvement. Making Blu-Ray still the best choice.

[DMC86X]

I was thinking about gettin interview with the Vampire but I see it has a 3.5/5 on here. Anyone have this blu??? Is it not worth it as far as PQ and AQ???

[1blufan]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

You have to consider the source. Reservoir Dogs doesn't look all that great on blu-ray, but it is far superior to the DVD, and looks very good given the technical attributes of that film.

Boondock Saints is hampered by it's source materials low-budget roots.

I Agree. Type of film and cameras used also play a role I think.

[GGX]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

For those who say "Gladiator" is a poor release..... it could be better, but I wouldn't say it's not a large upgrade to the DVD..... in the same respect, you could list "The Dark Knight" because it has EE in it also.

Oh there is more wrong with The Gladiator Blu than a bit of EE.

Originally Posted by Elvis

Nothing is wrong with Patton looks great! Just read the review here and you will see that big +5 on the video. In fact if you go to most review sites other than The Digital Bits you will see that most loved the disc.

I'd say there is far more hate for the Patton transfer than love. It would look far better if it looked like it was supposed to without DNR. It was shot with 70mm film after all.

[RyRyMcNizzy13]

im not sure how bad it is compared to dvd but V For Vendetta really dissapointed me. it's just too good of a movie to be that s h itty in quality

[BluIsGold]

Originally Posted by DMC86X

I was thinking about gettin interview with the Vampire but I see it has a 3.5/5 on here. Anyone have this blu??? Is it not worth it as far as PQ and AQ???

PQ is about average for my taste, but I was really let down by the AQ. Maybe wait and see if it goes below $15 as part of a Halloween sale.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ron

Superman Returns
Ghostbusters

Gladiator is just fine!

As are the other two you listed. Ghostbusters looks great for a mid 80's film. The grain is part of the film and necessary considering the stock and age. Superman Returns looks accurate and the TrueHD and PCM tracks are reference.

[banned user105]

Originally Posted by GGX

I'd say there is far more hate for the Patton transfer than love. It would look far better if it looked like it was supposed to without DNR. It was shot with 70mm film after all.

You'd have to be out of your mind delusional to say there's a positive consensus on Patton, as this Elvis clearly is.

Most people hate it.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by BluIsGold

PQ is about average for my taste, but I was really let down by the AQ. Maybe wait and see if it goes below $15 as part of a Halloween sale.

I can't believe I sold my Special Edition DVD of Interview with the Vampire without comparing the specs to Blu. Kicking myself since it has full bitrate DTS and the Blu has lossy. DAMMIT!
Yeah I wouldn't buy PATTON since it's DNRd. Same goes for Pan's Labyrinth although I've never seen it and I'd import it.
TOTAL RECALL I'd import from Australia too.
I'm waiting for another release for the Lethal Weapon films.
Full Metal Jacket Deluxe Edition is superior compared to the first release.
Thank the majority of film studios for their home division not to impliment Regional coding.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

As are the other two you listed. Ghostbusters looks great for a mid 80's film. The grain is part of the film and necessary considering the stock and age. Superman Returns looks accurate and the TrueHD and PCM tracks are reference.

Actually, Superman Returns has some of the worst banding I've seen on a Blu-ray. It needs a lot more breathing room than it has. Audio is definitely great on the TrueHD/PCM tracks.

Gangs of New York is definitely the worst I've seen. Sure, it's better than the DVD, but I don't really consider DVD to be that high of a benchmark anymore. Kinda like saying a kick to the stomach is better than a punch to the face. Not really a huge upgrade.