is blu-ray really needed for every movie?

[Bobby Henderson]

Any movie shot on film or HD video can be justifiably released on Blu-ray.

The only material that should be DVD-only is shows that were shot on NTSC 480i or 480p video.

[mikesoba]

Originally Posted by steeve

I'm seeing a lot of threads on here of people begging for blu-ray on movies that have nothing but people talking. What's the point? Isn't dvd just fine for that?

Let's reserve our market-driving consumer demand for movies that actually have something to look at.

Shouldn't VHS tape be good enough for people talking? What's the point of even having this stuff on DVD?

[BluBane]

I have pretty much stopped buying DvD. I get only Blu Ray now. Most the family and friends I have here all have Blu. I have even been thinking about dumping a lot of my DvD collection someplace and doing a turnaround for just straight Blu.

[FIDDYPOP]

Hell Yeah

[Maxell]

If you dont think that blu-ray is needed for almost everything (ok maybe not a 1920's film), then you are one of the people that is holding blu-ray back from one day taking over as the #1 video media (taking over dvd).

[Squozen]

Originally Posted by big angry

Not to belabor the point, but I still don't see it.

Drastic example, but do you really think a movie like say Metropolis (a 1920s German silent film) should be on Blu-Ray?

It's a brilliant movie, far ahead of its time and ridiculously influential on the genre, but you're not going to find any way to make it high resolution, and you're not going to make the original mono recorded-on-wax-cylinder soundtrack into anything approaching a home theater experience.

Like I said, it's a drastic example, but I think you understand the idea.

Drastic, and also stupid and wrong.

The F.W. Murnau Foundation released a 153-minute, digitally restored version in 2002, undertaken by Martin Koerber. It included the original music score and title cards describing the action in the missing sequences. Lost clips were gleaned from museums and archives around the world, and computers were used to digitally clean each frame and repair minor defects. The original score has been re-recorded with an orchestral ensemble. Many scenes have still not been recovered, however, and are considered lost. Scenes which remain missing include the adventures of 11811, a worker who trades places with Freder, Maria's incarceration, Rotwang's gloating and her subsequent escape, and scenes which establish the longstanding rivalry between Joh Fredersen and Rotwang.

Film is BETTER than DVD resolution, even if it's only 16mm. Evey film deserves to look its best, and DVD is rubbish, not only for the poor resolution but for the weaker colour resolution and huge amount of artefacting.

[Anthony P]

I'm seeing a lot of threads on here of people begging for blu-ray on movies that have nothing but people talking. What's the point? Isn't dvd just fine for that?

Let's reserve our market-driving consumer demand for movies that actually have something to look at

why would I want to watch a crap version of a movie? All movies have something to look at, if not it would be a radio show and even then I would rather get the better sound of a BD

[Anthony P]

The only material that should be DVD-only is shows that were shot on NTSC 480i or 480p video.

I disagree. Even a TV show that was shot in 480i or 480p can benefit from being on BD. Not only does it not need to be as over compressed, but you can have it on a lot fewer disks.

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by steeve

I'm seeing a lot of threads on here of people begging for blu-ray on movies that have nothing but people talking. What's the point? Isn't dvd just fine for that?

Let's reserve our market-driving consumer demand for movies that actually have something to look at.

So when you watch one of these movies that has nothing to look at, do you keep your TV switched off? If a picture is worth looking at, it's worth looking at in the highest possible quality.

[dakota81]

Originally Posted by steeve

I'm seeing a lot of threads on here of people begging for blu-ray on movies that have nothing but people talking. What's the point? Isn't dvd just fine for that?

Let's reserve our market-driving consumer demand for movies that actually have something to look at.

So in other words, only release the movies that you personally want. Nobody else in the world matters but yourself.

[MrEggMan]

Originally Posted by big angry

Not to belabor the point, but I still don't see it.

Drastic example, but do you really think a movie like say Metropolis (a 1920s German silent film) should be on Blu-Ray?

It's a brilliant movie, far ahead of its time and ridiculously influential on the genre, but you're not going to find any way to make it high resolution, and you're not going to make the original mono recorded-on-wax-cylinder soundtrack into anything approaching a home theater experience.

Like I said, it's a drastic example, but I think you understand the idea.

Good. Don't buy a Blu-Ray of Metropolis and leave it on the shelves for people who want it.

Just because you don't want it or the majority of Blu-Ray consumers don't want it doesn't it mean that it doesn't have a place on the format. It's stupid to sit there and say "Does it deserve a release on Blu-Ray?"

Any film that anyone wants to put on Blu-Ray will expand the market even more. From Metropolis to Transformers. From Plan 9 From Outer Space to Cloverfield. They all have a place on someone's shelf and to say that something shouldn't be on Blu-Ray is limiting the potential of the format drastically.

Silent films don't have soundtracks. That's why they're called "silent". Any releases of silent films have re-recorded or newly-composed soundtracks played by either organs, rock bands, small combos, or symphony orchestras. Metropolis' most recent release was recorded in 2002 and released in 5.1 sound. Same with Napoleon in the early 80s. There are no wax cylinders for silent films. When silent films are shown, the music is usually played live. I saw Napoleon in London with a full symphony orchestra and it was the most amazing theatrical experience of my life.

And I actually find it insulting to films that may not be as popular as the #1 hits that were released in the last 6 months. Many user's collections around here have room for new movies but many also understand that for every new movie there are 10 catalogue titles that are just as good or better and just as worthy of an HD release.

The "old movies are not HD" argument has been done to death around here. The film-to-HD resolution has been discussed on many many threads. Please do a search before making claims that are untrue.

Blu-Ray isn't a "needed" format. Like DVD, it's a "will it sell" format. There is no "needed" for Blu-Ray.

BTW...Metropolis IS on DVD in an absolutely stunning release by Kino. And it would be even more stunning on Blu-Ray.

[Weati]

The only thing that I don't think benefits much are the 4:3 animated shows. Even watching the 16:9 Futurama movie, I don't think you would benefit much from Blu.

I'm most concerned with how good the older films will look on Blu. You look at 2001 or Bladerunner and they are gorgeous. I go back and watch some of the older Trek movies and the quality of the image is horrid. We should encourage the studios to restore these old films and take out the defects and make new 4K copies of these films. We know the old films can be made to look as good as brand new films and we should demand it.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Is blu-ray really needed for every movie?

Yes... no need to elaborate.

[zombieking]

Yes. yes it is

[theNothingComes]

When buying our PS3 my first concern was my 500 + titles already owned on DVD. I'm very thankful it upconverts so beautifully because many I will probably not replace.

Exception 2001 or the Harry Potter films. But School of Rock no.

[Beta Man]

Everything would benefit from it, even "Following" (same director as Memento.... I owned it before Memento came out, and it made Memento an instant buy for me) but will I RE-BUY "Following" on Blu??? Nah.... I wait for the reviews etc. on the transfer/quality before I decide if I Re-buy.... but for first-time-purchases of new-releases, it's ALL-BLU.

[Bobby Henderson]

I disagree. Even a TV show that was shot in 480i or 480p can benefit from being on BD.

Anything shot on video in NTSC format has a very limited amount of native detail. No more detail than can be shown in 480i/480p. Trying to blow up such material to 720p or 1080p would be largely pointless.

Some people might be able to appreciate lower levels of compression and video bit rates well above the 10 Mb/s max of DVD-V. But those people are going to be few in number. Far more people would be complaining about the limited amount of detail and the old 4:3 aspect ratio.

Videotaped NTSC TV shows will continue to be released on standard DVD until you just can't mass-replicate DVD-V discs anymore.

Thankfully, many popular TV shows were shot on film rather than mere videotape. It's more do-able for those shows to be remastered in 1080p HD as long as the original film elements have survived. If all that's left is NTSC-based videotape in the archives, then that show is just stuck in low-def from here on out.

[coolmilo]

Yes, because we want mass acceptance of the format. And we want Blu-ray to replace DVD. The more titles available on Blu-ray the more people will buy into it.

[Kristin Simard]

I think that at the very best some 90% of all films do not need to be transfered to blu-ray due to the fact that they aren't worth it. They are not worth watching. Only some 10% at the very most deserve quality transfers to blu-ray.

However, my 10% may differ (no doubt!) from your 10%, which may differ again from the next person's 10% and so on (assuming we all have our own "10%" favorites). So the only option for the studios is to produce as many quality transfers as possible to appeal to "all" of us.

[Anthony P]

Anything shot on video in NTSC format has a very limited amount of native detail. No more detail than can be shown in 480i/480p. Trying to blow up such material to 720p or 1080p would be largely pointless.

I did not say they should be upscaled on disk (even though studios should have better equipment to do it then a home upscaler and if you are watching it on a 1080p display sooner or later it will be upscaled) BD content does not need to be 1080p (look at the extras on many disks). I pointed out two reasons

1) less compression and let's not forget possibly lossless audio (which I skipped before)
2) less disks which increases convenience.

if you would have said
"The only material that could be DVD-only is shows that were shot on NTSC 480i or 480p video"

I probably would not have replied, but there is no reason why it should not be on BD. Even if the benefit is less then something from film.