What are good blu ray movies to get that are true blu ray

[nec1912]

I know some blu ray movies are not that good cause they are remastered and not true blu ray.

The code
The taken
invasion
Dark night
resisted evil
Angels & Demons
The Mask of Zorro
It has been 20
Terminator
Terminator 2:
Terminator 3:
Terminator Salvation
Quantum of Solace
Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy Blu-ray
Casino Royale
The Bourne Trilogy
Live Free or Die Hard
Gladiator
The Taking of Pelham
Planet of the Apes: Collection
Universal Soldier
Ghostbusters
Constantine
The Longest Day
Twister
The Fifth Element
Fast & Furious
Resident Evil: Trilogy
Battle of Britain
Top Gun
Serenity
Robocop Trilogy
Dirty Harry: The Ultimate Collection
James Bond Collection:
Speed
Blade Collection
A Bridge Too Far
Stargate
Pearl Harbor
Surrogates
I, Robot
The Transporter Collection
Die Hard Collection
Babylon A.D.
Rambo Collection
Crank
Crank 2:
The Hunt For Red October
Ghost Rider
Enemy at the Gates
Eagle Eye
Under Siege

What blu ray movies above should I stay away from that are not true blu ray but remastered?

[ai3rocks57]

What?! Remasters are a GOOD thing.

[Moefiz]

I am ...what's the list in the OP post for...

[42041]

What? They're all blu-rays. Some don't look as good for a variety of reasons. Remastering is a good thing. The majority of films produced in the second half of this decade will look like their digital master on blu-ray, ie, just like they should. Movies that weren't mastered digitally in the first place are more of a crapshoot. Look up reviews of individual releases if you really want to know.

[Rblu-Dblu]

I think the OP is asking which of the titles in his list are best to own on bluray and which are not much of an upgrade.

[nec1912]

Originally Posted by Moefiz

I am ...what's the list in the OP post for...

The list of the movies above that look reallly good and the once that are not that much better than DVD.


If the Planet of the Apes: Collection does not look that much better than DVD than I will not get it.

[Stillhouse]

I gather from your other posts that you are under the incorrect assumption that HD is somehow better than film. What you should know is Blu-ray and other 1080p sources have a roughly 2 mega-pixel rating. Traditional film (8MM, 16MM and 35MM) that has been used in the motion picture industry for decades surpasses this, even going as his as 12-15 mega-pixels in equivalent resolution.

[nec1912]

Originally Posted by 42041

What? They're all blu-rays. Some don't look as good for a variety of reasons. Remastering is a good thing. The majority of films produced in the second half of this decade will look like their digital master on blu-ray, ie, just like they should. Movies that weren't mastered digitally in the first place are more of a crapshoot. Look up reviews of individual releases if you really want to know.

Why is remastering a good thing ?

[steve_dave]

Remastering a title creates a new master that removes the dirt, print damage, and other anomalies that occur when an archived master sits in a vault for years.

Also, wheneven any movie is released to Blu-ray Disc, it has technically been remastered from its film source to a digital medium.

[42041]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Why is remastering a good thing ?

If a movie was was produced before digital post-production was the norm, an HD master might have been created in the dark ages of digital imaging and is not up to blu-ray standards. If they take the film and run it through state of the art scanning equipment in 2009, it's going to look a LOT better than film they ran through whatever outdated device they used to digitize it in 2000. If you want to see what an older movie can look like remastered, check out Braveheart.

[nec1912]

Originally Posted by 42041

If a movie was was produced before digital post-production was the norm, an HD master might have been created in the dark ages of digital imaging and is not up to blu-ray standards. If they take the film and run it through state of the art scanning equipment in 2009, it's going to look a LOT better than film they ran through whatever outdated device they used to digitize it in 2000. If you want to see what an older movie can look like remastered, check out Braveheart.

What does digital post-production have to do with remastering ? Why do you need digital for remastering ?

And how long have digital post-production been around?

[nec1912]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Remastering a title creates a new master that removes the dirt, print damage, and other anomalies that occur when an archived master sits in a vault for years.

Also, wheneven any movie is released to Blu-ray Disc, it has technically been remastered from its film source to a digital medium.

I would think they would not use a copy for copy has it would not look has good. But use the original to copy to blu ray than a copy to blu ray .

[H0opman31]

I have a question.

If a 1988-89 video was to be released for the first time, how would they go about releasing in terms of picture quality.

[42041]

Originally Posted by nec1912

What does digital post-production have to do with remastering ? Why do you need digital for remastering ?

And how long have digital post-production been around?

I'm assuming you realize movies are typically shot on film? It's an analog medium, and blu-ray is a digital medium, thus it needs to be converted. The vast majority of new movies use the digital intermediate process. The camera negatives are scanned into high quality digital files at 2K or 4K resolution, and the film stays in the digital realm from there. That's what the filmmakers see, that's what the theatrical prints are printed from, and what the blu-ray is encoded from. Thus, the disc is faithful to how the movie is supposed to look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_intermediate

Before the DI process became ubiquitous, they only did FX shots digitally. Otherwise the film stayed in the analog realm the entire time from shooting to theatrical print, all that stuff was done photochemically in a lab. For home video, the film was run through a telecine which produced relatively low quality results compared to the machines they use today. These low-quality masters often end up on blu-ray discs.

If you want an older movie to look really good on blu-ray, you'd want the studio to gather the film and re-digitize it on modern equipment.

(If I'm wrong on any of this hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct me)

[st4evr]

To OP, I am getting the feeling you know nothing in regards to how films make their way into a disc, or how filming is done now a days in general. Aside from the answers you received here which will be very helpful since we have some very good members here who know their stuff, i suggest you do some reading on your own as well by googling some of this stuff up for a thorough understanding, specially in the area of filming and digital authoring. There is no such thing as a true BD and not a true BD. Usually everything that ends up in the form of digital disc media(for the consumer) goes through some form of remastering or digital encoding and/or authoring. Some companies/formats/transfer/encoders/authors are better than others, so the transfer will look better. It just doesn't go from the reel to the disc. So again, there is no "true BDs" and "not true BDs". A Blu-ray is just that, a Blu-ray, which provides HD resolution transfer for viewing video. Some will look better than others no matter if they were filmed yesterday or 50 years ago. Usually the studios will use the original master to transfer anything to a digital medium. So, yes, remastering is a very good thing because it brings out how the film was originally suppose to look. It cleans it and fixes any errors, anomalies, and damages created in the film process or due to storage.

[nec1912]

home video, the film was run through a telecine which produced relatively low quality results compared to the machine they use today. These low-quality masters often end up on blu-ray discs

What is telecine and how does it work? When did they stop using telecine ?

I'm assuming you realize movies are typically shot on film?

Yes the older movies use film and are analog .

an analog medium, and blu-ray is a digital medium, thus it needs to be converted. The vast majority of new movies use the digital intermediate process. The camera negatives are scanned into high quality digital files at 2K or 4K resolution, and the film stays in the digital realm from there. That's what the filmmakers see, that's what the theatrical prints are printed from, and what the blu-ray is encoded from

If they are using a old analog film than yes it needs to be converted. What is wrong using digital intermediate to convert it?

[fredbalsodn]

Originally Posted by ai3rocks57

What?! Remasters are a GOOD thing.

I am thinking the dme thing

[Sean4000]

Originally Posted by 42041

I'm assuming you realize movies are typically shot on film? It's an analog medium, and blu-ray is a digital medium, thus it needs to be converted. The vast majority of new movies use the digital intermediate process. The camera negatives are scanned into high quality digital files at 2K or 4K resolution, and the film stays in the digital realm from there. That's what the filmmakers see, that's what the theatrical prints are printed from, and what the blu-ray is encoded from. Thus, the disc is faithful to how the movie is supposed to look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_intermediate

Before the DI process became ubiquitous, they only did FX shots digitally. Otherwise the film stayed in the analog realm the entire time from shooting to theatrical print, all that stuff was done photochemically in a lab. For home video, the film was run through a telecine which produced relatively low quality results compared to the machines they use today. These low-quality masters often end up on blu-ray discs.

If you want an older movie to look really good on blu-ray, you'd want the studio to gather the film and re-digitize it on modern equipment.

(If I'm wrong on any of this hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct me)

You have explained it beautifully.

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by nec1912

What is telecine and how does it work? When did they stop using telecine ?

They haven't stopped using telecine. Telecine is the process of scanning the film so it can be placed on a home-use medium (and other things). If you've ever watched a movie on your TV, VHS, Video-CD, DVD, Laserdisc, iPod, Blu-Ray or even digital projection in a theater, you've been watching the results of telecine. (Of course with the exception of the few films either shot completely digitally or rendered on computer, like Pixar films.)

Think of a telecine as a movie version of a scanner on your computer that you would use to scan your old photographs into the computer. If you use a film-camera to take photographs, you have to have a piece of equipment to get them into a computer (your scanner). Movie film is the same way... The telecine basically scans one frame of film (much like a home negative scanner would work, but MUCH better quality), then advances the film one frame and scans again.

If you are curious what they look like, do a Google image search for 'spirit 4k', that'll show you one of the newer high-end telecine machines used by studios today.

Originally Posted by nec1912

Yes the older movies use film and are analog .

Um, almost every movie in theaters NOW used film and was analog. Granted, digital cameras are becoming more popular, but most movies are still shot on film, even today.

Originally Posted by nec1912

If they are using a old analog film than yes it needs to be converted.

If they are using new analog film TODAY, it still needs to be converted... The process hasn't changed, the equipment has just gotten a LOT better.

Look at Stargate for example. The old Blu-ray that came out in the beginning of Blu-ray is using an HD master made about 6 or 7 years ago. The one that was just released (the 15th anniversary edition) is using a new HD master made last February. That's a perfect example of how good a modern re-master can look compared to one made on equipment just 6 years old...

The two versions of Fifth Element are another good example of what a remaster and clean up can do to improve picture.

Rik

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by nec1912

What is telecine and how does it work? When did they stop using telecine ?

Yes the older movies use film and are analog .

If they are using a old analog film than yes it needs to be converted. What is wrong using digital intermediate to convert it?

I'll let you google the first question as it is just something you need to learn to do.

Nothing is wrong with using a Digital Intermediate. All modern movies use it. If you are asking why it wasn't used earlier it was because until the more recent years scanning a film at 2K (2048x1080) or 4K (4096x2160) was a expensive process. And some Director's still prefer to use the photochemical process because they just like to make movies the old fashioned way. An example is Christopher Nolan making The Dark Knight the photochemical way and Warner Bros or IMAX then came in later after he was finished and scanned 35mm material at 4K to then be used for the IMAX prints.

And why did you ignore what me, UFAlien and Beta Man said in this thread: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=118923
We already explained to you that film has a far higher resolution then Blu-ray and every film shot on 35mm on Blu-ray is "true Blu-ray".

A lot of the questions you ask can be googled yourself and it is better to google up this information and learn about it more yourself instead of making multiple threads saying remastered movies are not "true Blu-rays".