Why do so many BD's look SO BAD???

[popoboy]

Can someone please explain to me why some BD's look so amazing and others look so bad? I have been buying movies for 5 years and am just tired of expecting them to look good and then being sadly disappointed...I know the basic answers about how much the studio is willing to spend on mastering etc...(and I mainly buy classic and retro movies) But it's SO hit and miss...I just purchased "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" I've been waiting for years for this to be released. Saw it recently on an HD station and it looked great. Then I got the BD last week and it looks AWFUL...It looks like it's been rolled in sand, grain everywhere, mosquito noise, poor coloring...I mean Disney truly screwed this one up (lets not even mention the fact that the didn't include the longer version of the film) This isn't the first time I've noticed this...A few years ago I saw a beautiful HD showing of "West Side Story" and then purchased the BD...Again...weird colors, telecine wobble, and the blu ray just looked terrible next to the HD broadcast. WHY IS THIS??? Can someone please explain? I'm about ready to give up on Blu ray...and I hate to say this but each time I buy a catalog title I'm less and less impressed. And please, for all you younger out there, please don't tell me that this is the way an older film is SUPPOSED to look because that just isn't true..Let's remember that many of us saw these films multiple times on first release and remember how they looked...and they DID NOT LOOK LIKE A GRAINY MESS. Let's not forget that a film projected on a huge screen might show some grain, but scaled down onto a 55 inch TV should not show the grain...it should be very minimal...and also I'm tired of hearing that the director intended the grain...This is ALSO not true (unless it is a film like Fight Club) These older films were simply the result of film stocks of the time...nothing more...Disenchanted with Blu ray.....

[dallywhitty]

Grain, glorious grain.

[Astro Zombie]

Are your Blu-rays stamped "Whole Grain"? If they're not, that might be the problem.

[popoboy]

Originally Posted by Astro Zombie

Are your Blu-rays stamped "Whole Grain"? If they're not, that might be the problem.

Haha....That was funny! By the way...I'm not a grain hater...I realize their is a natural grain to film...I've worked with film for years...but I think many people are mistaking a bad mastering job for proper grain...

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by popoboy

I've worked with film for years...

And yet, can't seem to understand what an optical effect is. Bedknobs is swimming in them.

[popoboy]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

And yet, can't seem to understand what an optical effect is. Bedknobs is swimming in them.

Hmmmm...Did I ever say I didn't know what an optical effect was??? Man, there is a LOT of snippy, catty, know-it-all people on here! Yikes!

[Thomas Irwin]

Originally Posted by Astro Zombie

Are your Blu-rays stamped "Whole Grain"? If they're not, that might be the problem.

Those are only the one's that come with slipcovers, extra fiber and all.

[Leterface]

I think the issue the OP have (with a small amount of films) might not have anything to do with overall BD PQ. Because it have rarely be proven that the BD looks like what the film looked like in the theather decades ago. It is easier to know how 90s+ should look like. But it ain't many people who have a clue about how, say a 60s film should look like.


Personally, I can take all damage and scratches and ofcourse real grain, without major hickups. But if a film looks artificial then it bothers me. But I am easy with color timings, even EE etc even I often actually get carried away from the film, just thinking of ''should this really look like this?"

[The Great Owl]

I only need the fingers on one hand to count the number of Blu-rays in my entire collection that actually look bad.

My definition of a bad Blu-ray is one that does not improve on its DVD incarnation. Fortunately, there are not many of those out there in the world.

[popoboy]

I agree...it should improve on the DVD...in the case of "Bedknobs" it was not an improvement...I'm glad I kept the DVD...I'll be selling the BD

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I only need the fingers on one hand to count the number of Blu-rays in my entire collection that actually look bad.

My definition of a bad Blu-ray is one that does not improve on its DVD incarnation. Fortunately, there are not many of those out there in the world.

That's an awfully low standard.

[HD Goofnut]

The most common answer is the studios. Often times when a catalog title is scheduled for a BD release the respective studio has a choice. They can either use the master they have, which is sometimes more than a decade old or they can strike a new master. Unfortunately, the former is often the choice because it saves them money. Furthermore, there are times when the a certain title is need of a new restoration on top of needing a new master.

[popoboy]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

The most common answer is the studios. Often times when a catalog title is scheduled for a BD release the respective studio has a choice. They can either use the master they have, which is sometimes more than a decade old or they can strike a new master. Unfortunately, the former is often the choice because it saves them money. Furthermore, there are times when the a certain title is need of a new restoration on top of needing a new master.

I think you are probably right on this answer...I think it's the amount of time, money and whether they use a new or older transfer...and just how well it's being monitored...I swear, on several I've purchased it looks like someone just hit "START" and didn't check quality control on anything. I guess the reason this bothers me so much is that I thought Blu ray was supposed to be the ultimate in clarity and picture and I keep seeing HD broadcasts of old movies that show just as much detail and yet look so much better than the BD.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by popoboy

I think you are probably right on this answer...I think it's the amount of time, money and whether they use a new or older transfer...and just how well it's being monitored...I swear, on several I've purchased it looks like someone just hit "START" and didn't check quality control on anything. I guess the reason this bothers me so much is that I thought Blu ray was supposed to be the ultimate in clarity and picture and I keep seeing HD broadcasts of old movies that show just as much detail and yet look so much better than the BD.

if you're seeing HD broadcasts that outshine the blu-ray something's wrong with your eyes. the Bedknobs HDTV transfer that was on a year or so ago that looks scrubbed beyond belief and like CRAP....the only HDTV transfer I've EVER seen outshine the blu-ray is NOTLD 99... and that was only because of the color timing

[popoboy]

Originally Posted by wormraper

if you're seeing HD broadcasts that outshine the blu-ray something's wrong with your eyes. the Bedknobs HDTV transfer that was on a year or so ago that looks scrubbed beyond belief and like CRAP....the only HDTV transfer I've EVER seen outshine the blu-ray is NOTLD 99... and that was only because of the color timing

Yeah...it's probably my eyes then because I found the BD of Bedknobs a real disappointment, I'll probably never watch it again...Sorry...just my opinion...

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by popoboy

Yeah...it's probably my eyes then because I found the BD of Bedknobs a real disappointment, I'll probably never watch it again...Sorry...just my opinion...

Bedknobs was a very good transfer, easy 4/5 transfer.... what were you expecting? most reviews gave it a 4-4.5/5

[Bigwayne]

Originally Posted by popoboy

Yeah...it's probably my eyes then because I found the BD of Bedknobs a real disappointment, I'll probably never watch it again...Sorry...just my opinion...

Send it to me, I'll gladly enjoy it.

[popoboy]

So...why did watching B & B on BD bother me so much...to me, the picture was so bad in certain parts that it totally took me out of the movie and pissed me off...I saw this movie 3 times in 1971 and again, twice, in 1979 during its re-release to theaters...Never once did I sit in the theater and think that the picture looked bad. So why is it in 2014 I am so sorry I purchased this? I don't get it...something isn't right... (I've also owned this movie on VHS, Beta, Laserdisc and DVD) I guess some will think it looks good...we all have different ways of looking at these things...

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by popoboy

I think you are probably right on this answer...I think it's the amount of time, money and whether they use a new or older transfer...and just how well it's being monitored...I swear, on several I've purchased it looks like someone just hit "START" and didn't check quality control on anything. I guess the reason this bothers me so much is that I thought Blu ray was supposed to be the ultimate in clarity and picture and I keep seeing HD broadcasts of old movies that show just as much detail and yet look so much better than the BD.

A huge amount of blu-rays are taken from DVD era masters from the 90's or early 2000's, i.e. they were not at all restored specifically for blu-ray, but perhaps had some work done specifically for DVD (this means that to studios, blu-ray would be an additional investment... so I guess they try and do a "cost/benefit" on a case by case basis and not just restore every single film for blu-ray). In some cases, the materials they are working with were not in great shape, and while it is technically still being presented in 1080p - clearly they are not making full use of HD or 1080p. I'm thinking alot of it simply has to do with the technology from 10-15 years ago, vs the technology today. If it's a NEW remaster or restoration, most of the time that ends up looking great on blu-ray.

It seems like the format has always been sort of 50/50 at best between "new restorations" and stuff that is just dumped from an old master. At times there seems to be little rhyme or reason to it, as we see 4K restorations go to niche labels like Twilight Time... we've even seen some cult horror type films like Maniac Cop 2/3 and Demon's get 4K restorations. Yet for bonafide classics like The Graduate or Far and Away... we get highly disappointing blu-rays sourced from who knows what.

[popoboy]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

A huge amount of blu-rays are taken from DVD era masters from the 90's or early 2000's, i.e. they were not at all restored specifically for blu-ray. In some cases, the materials they are working with were not in great shape, and while it is technically still being presented in 1080p - clearly they are not making full use of HD or 1080p. I'm thinking alot of it simply has to do with the technology from 10-15 years ago, vs the technology today. If it's a NEW remaster or restoration, most of the time that ends up looking great on blu-ray.

It seems like the format has always been sort of 50/50 at best between "new restorations" and stuff that is just dumped from an old master. There is little rhyme or reason to it, as we see 4K restorations go to niche labels like Twilight Time... we've even seen some cult horror type films like Maniac Cop 2/3 and Demon's get 4K restorations. Yet for bonafide classics like The Graduate or Far and Away... we get highly disappointing blu-rays sourced from who knows what.

SO true...thanks so much for your imput