Blu-ray pictures quality

[Forty-One]

I don't know, but not all Blu-ray movies have the same picture quality in my eyes. And it does not matter if the movie is old or recent. For instance, North by Northwest is one of the most visually beautiful movies I have seen so far on Blu-ray and this movie was released in 1959. The Final Countdown is also a movie that is absolutely stunning on Blu-ray and, yet, it was made in 1981. However, I was quite disapointed with the Blu-ray release of Wall Street The Blu-ray version of that movie is not any better (in my humble opinion) than the standard DVD version. Also, I was disapointed with the Blu-ray release of Bullitt as well as Fatal Attraction. But I think they did a fantastic job on movies like Quantum of Solace, Air Force One, Gladiator and The Dark Knight. Does it have to be a gamble when you purchase a movie on Blu-ray? Any thoughts and feedback on this? Thanks...

[Rblu-Dblu]

I think you may have just opened pandora's box.

Edit: and it's widely known that Gladiator is one of the worst transfers ever.

[42041]

Not all blu-rays are good?


OH MY GOD STOP THE PRESSES THIS IS GROUNDBREAKING

[MaCruz]

Another one of these threads?

Appearance is subjective...

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Forty-One

But I think they did a fantastic job on movies like Quantum of Solace, Air Force One, Gladiator and The Dark Knight.

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Originally Posted by Forty-One

Does it have to be a gamble when you purchase a movie on Blu-ray?

No thats why they make reviews. I never look at what the reviewer thinks of the movie but i always look at PQ & AQ.

[MaCruz]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

I'm one of the few that thought Gladiator was fine on my 1080i Sony Projection TV

I still want that re-release though!

[jdub]

Lets argue about the grain in movies too!

[MaCruz]

Originally Posted by jdub

Lets argue about the grain in movies too!

[Show spoiler]300

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Originally Posted by MaCruz

[Show spoiler]300

I will 1 up you with Clash of the Titans.

[MaCruz]

Originally Posted by ArmyOfDarknessAW

I will 1 up you with Clash of the Titans.

I haven't seen it on BD yet. I heard it was bad.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Rblu-Dblu

I think you may have just opened pandora's box.

Edit: and it's widely known that Gladiator is one of the worst transfers ever.

Yes, Gladiator transfer is terrible. I wouldn't trust anyone's eyes who thought it looked even remotely good.

The reason is different films are filmed in different ways and some are made to be somewhat ugly (eg: Predator) some are made to be sharp and crisp (Blade Runner). Also some films are giving terrific transfers whilst others are giving terrible transfers.

[Atreyu]

There are many deciding factors regarding picture quality.
On older movies some of them were shot more cheaply and/or did not have good quality film stock. And most don't warrant a costly restoration or remastering because it's not in the the best intrest of the studios, financially speaking.
If you wanna talk grain well let's just say grain is inherint in film, more noticably in older ones and when you remove it you loose picture quality and can add softness/bluriness to the picture. Removing it is known as Digital Noise Reduction, or DNR. And true movie people, myself include, like it. Others prefer to have it removed. Removing it makes the movie seem to appear less film like. I want to see the movie as close to the original or as close to the director's intention as possible without any alterations done.
Sometimes the PQ looks different depending on what the director's intentions were. Now I have never seen M*A*S*H on blu-ray but I understand Altman shot the film thru a filter making the film look a bit softer and perhaps grittier.
I could go on and on about this because so many things can affect picture quality. You cannot always go by reviews either, I use them as sort of a guide as I have not always agreed with the reviewer or other users.
Hope this helps a bit.

[KingSimba]

I never understood why Gladiator was marked as having one of the worst transfers ever?

Surely not? I have it, watched it, and thought the PQ was ok, especially in certain parts.

[42041]

Originally Posted by SSBlu

I never understood why Gladiator was marked as having one of the worst transfers ever?

Surely not? I have it, watched it, and thought the PQ was ok, especially in certain parts.

It's not the worst transfer ever, but it's certainly the worst transfer ever for a recent and very popular best picture winner and a movie marketed under the premium "sapphire" label.

[eatbear]

Originally Posted by Forty-One

Does it have to be a gamble when you purchase a movie on Blu-ray? Any thoughts and feedback on this? Thanks...

Absolutely not. That is what this site is for: finding the best blu-rays of all the films you love! Look around at all the reviews/screencaps before purchasing a movie if you require perfect quality. I personally try my best to buy only the best quality in both content and transfer, but of course everyone's taste is different and everything is subjective.

It's easy to consult the myriad of threads regarding specific releases on this forum, so use that to your advantage when searching for titles.

Good luck!

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by SSBlu

I never understood why Gladiator was marked as having one of the worst transfers ever?

Surely not? I have it, watched it, and thought the PQ was ok, especially in certain parts.

Probably the extended scenes, which actually look very good and stand in very sharp contrast to the rest of the scenes.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Probably the extended scenes, which actually look very good and stand in very sharp contrast to the rest of the scenes.

Indeed, which makes ti worse as you see what it should have all looked like.