Why do some BD special features look more "HD" than the film itself?

[weiland555]

Forgive what might be a stupid question, but how come the special features on BD often look more hi-def than the feature itself? Is it an encoding issue or movie-maker intent?

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by weiland555

Forgive what might be a stupid question, but how come the special features on BD often look more hi-def than the feature itself? Is it an encoding issue or movie-maker intent?

Do you mean previews or Extras?

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by weiland555

Forgive what might be a stupid question, but how come the special features on BD often look more hi-def than the feature itself? Is it an encoding issue or movie-maker intent?

Films should have the "look" intended by the director, they are NOT the Discovery Channel HD.

[Lucy Diamond]

I think it's a fair question.

If you are, indeed, talking about previews, I'd say that they polish them as much as they can in order to sel more Blu Rays.

[chasarms]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Films should have the "look" intended by the director, they are NOT the Discovery Channel HD.

Exactly. The film itself is shot to have the feel the director intended. It may be shot to look dark (Batman Returns) , or ultra high contrast (300), or intentially grainy (Saving Private Ryan) or whatever look wanted to fit the mood of the film.

If the extras such as interviews, how they did it, etc. are also shot in HD (some are not) then they are likely shot on tape with a HD camera similar to what would be used for HD television, which may look "more hi-def" than the actual film.

[weiland555]

Thanks for the input, everyone. By "special features" I don't mean previews. I'm speaking of hidef extras such as "making of's" and deleted scenes. I've noticed these scenes have sometimes a more "HD" look to them. I think some of your answers have explained why. Any other input?

[weiland555]

A perfect example of what I mean would be a special feature in "Invincible". There is a mini-doc you can watch on how they digitally recreated the old Eagles stadium. Anyway, the interviews certainly have a super-HD look to them. But also, there are what seem to be actual clips from the movie that look strikingly better from what I had just watched in the full feature. My wife even exclaimed, "Why didn't the movie look like that?. Thoughts?

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by Lucy Diamond

I think it's a fair question.

If you are, indeed, talking about previews, I'd say that they polish them as much as they can in order to sel more Blu Rays.

In my experience, the trailers generally look worse than the actual movie that is being previewed; for some reason the trailers are encoded in MPEG-2 even though the movie being previewed is done in AVC.

[wallendo]

Most movies have a "film look". (Usually a narrow depth of field, and often somewhat dark). These movies are designed from the beginning to look good on a giant screen in a theatre.

Many of the special features are recorded on HD video equipment and have a "video look" which is frequently a brighter image with a wider depth of field. These features are designed to look good on video equipment.

[JadedRaverLA]

The short answer...

Most movies are shot on film... the remainder on digital video at 24fps. This produces a "film look," complete with grain, 3:2 pulldown on 60fps sets, etc.

Extras are likely encoded at 1080i60 and shot on digital video at that framerate. No "digital grain" is added, or anything else to make the picture look more "film-like." What you are seeing is TRUE HD video, as opposed to film transferred to an HD video storage medium. Personally, I want my movies to look like movies. Some people like their movies to look like HD video. That's what motion interpolation is for on 120 fps LCDs if you're interested in making everything look like that.