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

[Pizzamorg]

At the end of the day, I just think we're all different. I know that might sound like an obvious thing to say, but I don't think I've ever agreed with anyone on a Bluray. Some people call noise grain, others call grain noise, one person will say your TV isn't correctly calibrated the next will say it was professionally calibrated and looks worse than when it wasn't etc. I don't quite remember how it came about, but I remember listing the worst looking Blus in my collection in one thread before a vitriol surge of a backlash dissected my posts claiming my opinion was "wrong" because X Blu is "AMAZING" with fifteen exclamation marks.

[popoboy]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

In Poppins you can see some telltale signs of light grain removal/filtering, especially on the animation and live-action combo scenes. A bit of smearing in the fine details like facial textures and hair. Nothing offensively bad and waxy, of course. It does generally look quite good. The way those shots were created back in the days before digital compositing inherently led itself to much more graininess. For Mary Poppins it looks like Disney did some extra filtering on those scenes to match the grain field from the rest of the movie; on B+B (which I haven't seen, just going by your description) they presumably didn't and left the heavier grain intact during these scenes. It's worth noting this kind of filtering is NOT something they would have been able to do back when the movies were originally released.

As already noted, the human memory is incapable of accurately recalling such details; it remembers in broad strokes. You saw nothing wrong with the movies in theatres, but that also doesn't necessarily mean that it looked significantly different than it does now. Context is key. Back then, all movies were shot and shown on film. It was of course possible for some movies to be SO grainy as to be remarked upon (films blown up from 16mm or cropped Superscope negatives, for example), but if someone was used to the somewhat grainy appearance of contemporary film stocks and the spikes in graininess inherent in optical/visual FX shots, it wouldn't stand out to them either at the time or in their memory.

Nowadays with digital capture and exhibition, not to mention the over-filtered and processed HD showings on TV, the standards have shifted and actual film, especially from vintage film stocks, can seem overly grainy by comparison.

It is of course possible for a Blu-ray to be grainy and still be wrong; for example, Black Christmas has had no filtering applied and leaves its grain field intact but has also been compressed to hell, resulting in a true case of mosquito noise that's quite ugly and lasts the whole film. A lot of older masters from Europe especially have a ton of ugly noise inherited from older film scanners; see the UK release of Don't Look Know or the American release of Django for examples. Again, it's very ugly but also quite distinct, visually, from the sort of film grain visible on West Side Story. Like I said, I haven't seen Bedknobs and Broomsticks, so it's possible it has those issues too.

WOW...thank you...I appreciate your wonderful, lengthy (without being condescending or jerky) observations and points (all good).

[popoboy]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

At the end of the day, I just think we're all different. I know that might sound like an obvious thing to say, but I don't think I've ever agreed with anyone on a Bluray. Some people call noise grain, others call grain noise, one person will say your TV isn't correctly calibrated the next will say it was professionally calibrated and looks worse than when it wasn't etc. I don't quite remember how it came about, but I remember listing the worst looking Blus in my collection in one thread before a vitriol surge of a backlash dissected my posts claiming my opinion was "wrong" because X Blu is "AMAZING" with fifteen exclamation marks.

Thank you...you make a lot of sense!

[javi92]

At least for stuff shot on film, the advances in the scanning technology in the last few years have made a huge difference. Not to say the older masters using telecines from the early 2000s can't look good, but the newer stuff really helps with color stability, resolving grain, etc.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

one person will say your TV isn't correctly calibrated the next will say it was professionally calibrated and looks worse than when it wasn't etc.

I've never calibrated my television. I purchased the television and my first Blu-ray player on the same day, I hooked them up with a HDMI cable, and I just started watching movies. It ain't broke, and, if it ain't broke, then I'm not gonna fix it.

[Pizzamorg]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I've never calibrated my television. I purchased the television and my first Blu-ray player on the same day, I hooked them up with a HDMI cable, and I just started watching movies. It ain't broke, and, if it ain't broke, then I'm not gonna fix it.

I just used the "True Cinema" alternative preset theme for my TV as the critics raved about it in reviews for my TV. Been very happy with it.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by popoboy

OK...just did some research...did a Google search for BD reviews of this title and in many of the reviews they are also mentioning the heavy grain (more than usual/expected), several even mention how badly it spikes during the "fog" or "London" scenes...and also during the special effects and animation scenes. Again, this makes me think Disney didn't do much with this title. On the BD of "Mary Poppins" the animation/live actions scenes look amazing!

The reason why the BD looks grainier than the HD broadcast is because the higher resolution (720p vs. 1080p) brings out more grain. Since grain is a part of the picture, the higher resolution makes fine detail more apparent, including grain. So to counteract this, they add DNR. However that removes fine detail as well as grain, but for most people (since most people hate grain), it is the lessor of two evils.

Obviously Disney spent less time scrubbing the grain from this one, which I don't mind because I prefer the grain over sacrificing detail.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

The reason why the BD looks grainier than the HD broadcast is because the higher resolution (720p vs. 1080p) brings out more grain. Since grain is a part of the picture, the higher resolution makes fine detail more apparent, including grain. So to counteract this, they add DNR. However that removes fine detail as well as grain, but for most people (since most people hate grain), it is the lessor of two evils.

Obviously Disney spent less time scrubbing the grain from this one, which I don't mind because I prefer the grain over sacrificing detail.

I feel the exact same way, re: grain vs. sacrificing detail. I've never minded grain in the first place, actually. But I old ( ) so my early viewing experiences were pretty grainy anyways.

[Pirate King]

I am 65. I began collecting VHS in the early 1980's. Even a so-so Blu-ray looks amazing compared to those early days. I have quite a few Blu's and I can also say that I can count on one hand the movies I have that I believe are not very good. The fact is that Blu-rays look amazing compared to DVD. Yes, there is an exception now and then... but those exceptions are rare.

[Pizzamorg]

I have to say, by being able to see things side by side really puts things in perspective. I really love the Forbidden Planet transfer, lots of people have been pretty "meh" on it but when you compare how the Blu looks compared to the footage they use in the extras which I'm assuming is from a DVD, it's the difference between Heaven and Earth.

[Bob Schlapowitz]

The only Blu-ray that has truly disappointed me in terms of picture quality is Army of Darkness. Just a mess!

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Bob Schlapowitz

The only Blu-ray that has truly disappointed me in terms of picture quality is Army of Darkness. Just a mess!

Its bad, but not horrible. I've seen worse. Predator UHE for one.

[Pizzamorg]

Originally Posted by Bob Schlapowitz

The only Blu-ray that has truly disappointed me in terms of picture quality is Army of Darkness. Just a mess!

Haven't watched Army of Darkness yet, but I thought The Evil Dead was atrocious. I know it's just exposing what was already there, but it's a firm argument that not every film should get a Blu release. You can clearly see how much bigger the budget was for Evil Dead 2, which although still inconsistent at times, is gorgeous and holds up much better under the high def scrutiny.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Bob Schlapowitz

The only Blu-ray that has truly disappointed me in terms of picture quality is Army of Darkness. Just a mess!

The FR disc sports a superior transfer when compared to the U.S. and U.K. discs.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

Haven't watched Army of Darkness yet, but I thought The Evil Dead was atrocious. I know it's just exposing what was already there, but it's a firm argument that not every film should get a Blu release.

It's rhetoric like this that's likely to irk people. You're entitled to your opinion on not wanting to watch grainy movies, but saying it doesn't deserve a Blu-ray release is an overreach when so many fans love it and want it (not to mention that grain aside there is objectively an obvious increase in detail when compared to the DVD releases: See here. )

The only time a statement like that seems to make sense is when a movie was shot mostly or entirely on SD video, like 28 Days Later - and even that release has its defenders.

[Optimus]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Its bad, but not horrible. I've seen worse. Predator UHE for one.

I bought that one last month, I kinda regret it.

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

Haven't watched Army of Darkness yet, but I thought The Evil Dead was atrocious. I know it's just exposing what was already there, but it's a firm argument that not every film should get a Blu release. You can clearly see how much bigger the budget was for Evil Dead 2, which although still inconsistent at times, is gorgeous and holds up much better under the high def scrutiny.

I thought The Evil Dead looked fantastic on Blu, especially considering its low budget origins.

Originally Posted by OptimusL

I bought that one last month, I kinda regret it.

Don't regret it, Army of Darkness is amazing

[Optimus]

Originally Posted by Astro Zombie

I thought The Evil Dead looked fantastic on Blu, especially considering its low budget origins.



Don't regret it, Army of Darkness is amazing

No I was referring to Predator lol

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by OptimusL

No I was referring to Predator lol

Oh, then yes, regret that purchase very much.

[Pizzamorg]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

It's rhetoric like this that's likely to irk people. You're entitled to your opinion on not wanting to watch grainy movies, but saying it doesn't deserve a Blu-ray release is an overreach when so many fans love it and want it (not to mention that grain aside there is objectively an obvious increase in detail when compared to the DVD releases: See here. )

It wasn't just the grain for me, it was all the out of focus shots, the dramatic differences in colour, blacks and lighting sometimes multiple times in the same sequence and the obvious seams of the special effects too. I know people like a bit of cinematic honesty, but it just breaks the illusion for me and takes the fun out of it for me. I never meant that the film doesn't "deserve" a Blu release, but for me I'd rather stick to the DVD where the film didn't look like a constant reel of deleted scenes, and behind the scenes looks. The Blu is "better" in the most basic of the word, but the DVD better serves the film. For me, anyway.