Another picture quality question

[bmwone]

Sorry for bringing this question up again. I'm trying to make a decision weather or not to make a purchase. I own Band of Brothers in DVD format. The PQ and sound are very good in my opinion. My question is does anyone own the BD of Band of Brothers? Is the quality that much better than DVD version?

[pacificvibes]

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Band-...y-Review/1151/

[bmwone]

Thanks for that. That answers my question

[nec1912]

Do not buy any blu ray movie that is older than 5 years has they are remastered to blu ray and are not true 1080P.They like only 60% to 70 % HD.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Do not buy any blu ray movie that is older than 5 years has they are remastered to blu ray and are not true 1080P.They like only 60% to 70 % HD.

Do not listen to any blu-ray.com poster that does not know how film works as they are trying to sound knowledgeable and are not truly so. They're like, only 20% to 30% trustworthy.

Seriously, people have been through this over and over. Film - yes, film just like we've been using since 2004 and earlier - has a much higher resolution than Blu-ray. They ARE in fact HD, with perhaps 3 obscure exceptions. (The Beast, Escape from New York, and It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia, which is very recent.)

I am not sure how The Beast was shot, as it was a 90s TV movie. Always Sunny was actually shot on 480p digital video and upconverted for no apparent reason. As for Escape from New York, that was shot on film in Panavision, so it should have an HD-capable print. The distributor just sorta decided to upscale the digital transfer from the DVD, without going back to any other sort of hi-res scan.

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Do not buy any blu ray movie that is older than 5 years has they are remastered to blu ray and are not true 1080P.They like only 60% to 70 % HD.

35mm film has a resolution of 4K and more (4K = 4096x2160). Blu-ray has a resolution of 1920x1080. Now tell me which is more HD?

[nec1912]

What was the point to have high resolution film with nothing to watch it for over 100 years ?

Really blu ray players have only been around for 5 years and HD TV 10 years so what was point to have such high resolution film for 100 years nothing to watch it on.

And film is so old it been around so long . Now with digital video cameras and HD video cameras who wants to use old film that is 100 years old.

[nec1912]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

35mm film has a resolution of 4K and more (4K = 4096x2160). Blu-ray has a resolution of 1920x1080. Now tell me which is more HD?

Why have film 4 times better than blu ray with nothing to watch on ? Why where TV's in the 60's black and white and so grainy ?

Why a lack of sharp and vivid colors in TV's in the 60's but in the film it is 4 times more than blu ray?

Also on the subject of old flim being 4 times more than blu ray . Why do some HD movies look better than others on blu ray?

And why do HD on TV the quality not the same but quality fluctuate .

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Why have film 4 times better than blu ray with nothing to watch on ? Why where TV's in the 60's black and white and so grainy ?

Why a lack of sharp and vivid colors in TV's in the 60's but in the film it is 4 times more than blu ray?

Also on the subject of old flim being 4 times more than blu ray . Why do some HD movies look better than others on blu ray?

And why do HD on TV the quality not the same but quality fluctuate .

They had something better than TVs to watch them on: Theater screens. As for your other two questions, there are many, many answers. The quality can change based on the amount and type of compression used for the video, how well the original prints and/or negatives have been preserved, whether a restoration has been done, with what equipment and under what circumstances was it filmed, whether there were errors in the encoding or transferring progress, etc.

[ric_spooner]

Fantastic thread...4 down, 1 to go

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by nec1912

What was the point to have high resolution film with nothing to watch it for over 100 years ?

Really blu ray players have only been around for 5 years and HD TV 10 years so what was point to have such high resolution film for 100 years nothing to watch it on.

And film is so old it been around so long . Now with digital video cameras and HD video cameras who wants to use old film that is 100 years old.

Originally Posted by nec1912

Why have film 4 times better than blu ray with nothing to watch on ? Why where TV's in the 60's black and white and so grainy ?

Why a lack of sharp and vivid colors in TV's in the 60's but in the film it is 4 times more than blu ray?

Also on the subject of old flim being 4 times more than blu ray . Why do some HD movies look better than others on blu ray?

And why do HD on TV the quality not the same but quality fluctuate .

Film has higher resolution than Blu-ray, and has existed since before you were born..... whether you understand it or not...... that is the case.

[emoxley]

I just ordered it from Amazon.com.
It's a Christmas present from my wife. I told her months ago, that when we got a BD player, I wanted B of B for Christmas. Bad thing is, I have to wait until Christmas to watch it. May sell my dvd version on Craig's List............

[nec1912]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

They had something better than TVs to watch them on: Theater screens. As for your other two questions, there are many, many answers. The quality can change based on the amount and type of compression used for the video, how well the original prints and/or negatives have been preserved, whether a restoration has been done, with what equipment and under what circumstances was it filmed, whether there were errors in the encoding or transferring progress, etc.

Why could the theater have such high resolution? Why not give people scale down film to watch on small theater in the house than a VHS tape?


Could some blu ray movies look better than other blu ray movies base on how much time they put into transferring it to blu ray ?

[emoxley]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Could some blu ray movies look better than other blu ray movies base on how much time they put into transferring it to blu ray ?

Definitely yes.
I've read several times that the PQ of the Gladiator BD isn't very good at all. It seems like the same thing was said about Braveheart. The first BD release of The Fifth Element was bad. They had to redo that one.........

[Hammie]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Why could the theater have such high resolution? Why not give people scale down film to watch on small theater in the house than a VHS tape?

There was reel-to-reel available to home users, but it was expensive, big and difficult to use for most people. Also, life was far different in the 50's and 60's and even into the 70's. Going to the theater was a big deal. Having theater rooms in a home was not what life was all about. A small black and white or color TV was considered a luxury. I know my parents did not have a TV until sometime in the mid-60's. VCR's sis not come into our home until the late 80's. I got my first DVD player after I moved out of the house and was married in 1995. The technology for home users wasn't there because demand was not there. If the market wanted something higher quality it would have been around. Even today, the average user doesn't care. Look at where SACD went with the general consumer market. No where. (But that is a whole other debate as to why.)

Could some blu ray movies look better than other blu ray movies base on how much time they put into transferring it to blu ray ?

The quality of a blu-ray depends on a number of factors -- quality of master, what resolution it was scanned in at (2K, 4K, 6K, 8K), and what digital alterations were performed after it was scanned (DNR, EE, etc.). Some companies and director's are far more picky that others. This is why there are some movies that have taken a long time to be released or not at all (Star Wars).

There are plenty of older movies that look stellar on blu-ray. Look at Dr. No, Godfather Trilogy, 2001, Blade Runner, Close Encounters, Clockwork Orange to name a few. I'm sure most of them were filmed before you were born or at least still a baby.

Because film is analog it has no resolution. Resolution is a concept of digital. Resolution is the amount of pixels that can fit in to a given area. As mentioned, HD and Blu-ray support the 1920x1080 resolution. Most film is transferred at 2K since this gives enough resolution to fit into the specs. Additionally, as you increase the resolution, you increase the need of disc speace to store it on. I think I read that the film Baraka (which was shot on 60mm film) was transferred at 8K. The disc space required for that was 30 to 40 TERABYTES. This is why some studios just use a 2K scan for their catalog films.

[GeologyNut]

Originally Posted by louhamilton

There was reel-to-reel available to home users, but it was expensive, big and difficult to use for most people. Also, life was far different in the 50's and 60's and even into the 70's. Going to the theater was a big deal. Having theater rooms in a home was not what life was all about. A small black and white or color TV was considered a luxury. I know my parents did not have a TV until sometime in the mid-60's. VCR's sis not come into our home until the late 80's. I got my first DVD player after I moved out of the house and was married in 1995. The technology for home users wasn't there because demand was not there. If the market wanted something higher quality it would have been around. Even today, the average user doesn't care. Look at where SACD went with the general consumer market. No where. (But that is a whole other debate as to why.)



The quality of a blu-ray depends on a number of factors -- quality of master, what resolution it was scanned in at (2K, 4K, 6K, 8K), and what digital alterations were performed after it was scanned (DNR, EE, etc.). Some companies and director's are far more picky that others. This is why there are some movies that have taken a long time to be released or not at all (Star Wars).

There are plenty of older movies that look stellar on blu-ray. Look at Dr. No, Godfather Trilogy, 2001, Blade Runner, Close Encounters, Clockwork Orange to name a few. I'm sure most of them were filmed before you were born or at least still a baby.

Because film is analog it has no resolution. Resolution is a concept of digital. Resolution is the amount of pixels that can fit in to a given area. As mentioned, HD and Blu-ray support the 1920x1080 resolution. Most film is transferred at 2K since this gives enough resolution to fit into the specs. Additionally, as you increase the resolution, you increase the need of disc speace to store it on. I think I read that the film Baraka (which was shot on 60mm film) was transferred at 8K. The disc space required for that was 30 to 40 TERABYTES. This is why some studios just use a 2K scan for their catalog films.

Nice post Lou, I learned something new!!

[nec1912]

Because film is analog it has no resolution. Resolution is a concept of digital. Resolution is the amount of pixels that can fit in to a given area. As mentioned, HD and Blu-ray support the 1920x1080 resolution. Most film is transferred at 2K since this gives enough resolution to fit into the specs. Additionally, as you increase the resolution, you increase the need of disc speace to store it on. I think I read that the film Baraka (which was shot on 60mm film) was transferred at 8K. The disc space required for that was 30 to 40 TERABYTES. This is why some studios just use a 2K scan for their catalog films.

Why is TV shows so slow at coming out in blu ray but movies are so much faster at coming out in blu ray?

Also what do you mean by film has no resolution but digital does ? Why can analog hold so much more data than digital?

[Beta Man]

movies sell better, and aren't played in syndication.

he's saying that digital measures resolution by # of pixels that can physically be shown.... analog is on brush stroke, but that all changes during the transfer process....... but film still has higher potential resolution than digital.

[SpaceDog]

Think of film as a painting.

VHS was a picture of that painting in a textbook.
DVD was a picture of that painting in a coffee-table art book.
Blu-Ray is a poster print of that painting.

That poster print still has not capture all that there is of that painting - there is still detail that can't yet be reproduced, but it's as close as we've come yet, and it's great - no matter the age of the film.