|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.173.231.23
got matrix trilogy boxset in BD and they are awesome - the difference in picture quality (when compared to regular DVDs, all of which I also own) is amazing, especially the close-up scenes of the people - i could really count their eyebrow...
so i bought some more BDs but they are not so impressive. like right now, i'm watching Tomb raider in BD and while it's running at full HD (1920*1024 at24HZ), their picture quality seems to be only marginally better when compared to regular DVDs...
anyone noticed the same? does it have something to do with how the original movies were filmed? maybe recent ones and the ones being filmed have the eventual BD release in mind?
btw, the TV is full-hd capable samsung 46" with all the bells and whisles and the player is PS3.
Follow Ups:
Garbage in, garbage out. Iron man BD looks worse than Scorpions at Wacken DVD. A million different variables. Glad to hear the Matrix BD's look good. Will be on my 2 buy list.
"E pur si muove...And yet it moves"
Yes, good points,
I think with the BD production ramping up, and us now getting a bit more 'hindsight' to work with in the format, we can start seeing a layering of quality levels within the format.
The one big one mentioned is definitely the grain removal software.
Why is it that in no time grain has become 'a defect' instead of 'the nature of film'? On regular DVDs from just a few years ago, there is grain, and no one has died looking at them.
Part of it, I think, is precisely that digital video is making headway in theatres (both as internegative and for projection) right at the time that BD is coming up, so I guess people subconsciously suddenly see film grain and go "What's wrong?" But the BD reviewers aren't helping by mentioning film grain as if it is a defect.
The weirdly 'empty'(well,'video' really) look of a film with no grain is something I really hope gets kept in check.
As I understand, both 'Patton' and 'Gangs of New York' suffer from this to excess.
I just viewed "The Shining" BD again; just can't get enough of the images. There is a disc done right, from a superb source.
> > > Why is it that in no time grain has become 'a defect' instead of 'the nature of film'? On regular DVDs from just a few years ago, there is grain, and no one has died looking at them. < < <
Most of the people I've met who are anti-grain seem to be on the younger side, and grew up on video games instead of films. Their exposure to movies is somewhat limited. Most of the BDs seem to be tailored to them. Also, to compensate for DNR, many BDs have edge enhancement to give a fake sharpness.
Jack
Edits: 01/17/09 01/18/09
"i'm watching Tomb raider in BD and while it's running at full HD (1920*1024 at24HZ), their picture quality seems to be only marginally better when compared to regular DVDs..."
What are you watching the "regular DVDs" on? If your watching it on your Samsung/PS3 combo then your actually comparing Bluray to upconverted DVD.
In my case I haven't bothered comparing Bluray to DVD. The only time I did was when watching the BD version of Goodfellas. Towards the end of the movie there is a scene with a woman holding airline tickets. The tickets had a black bar covering it. I didn't recall seeing this on the regular DVD. After I finished watching the BD I popped in the regular DVD to see if the black bar was there and it was. I also really didn't notice any difference in PQ between the two. My setup is a Panny pz46800u and BD35 player.
Just because a format is capable of delivering a certain standard of result doesn't mean that every disc in that format will rise to that standard.
All DVDs are not equal in quality, all films are not equal in quality, all CDs are not equal in quality, all LPs are not equal in quality. There's no reason to expect that all BDs will be equal in quality and every reason to expect that they won't.
In general, BD will be better than DVD but I'm sure someone will get around to delivering a BD so lacklustre that everyone claims there's no improvement. Wait a minute, didn't Sony do that already with the first BD release of "The Fifth Element"? That was so bad it was recalled and redone from start before being reissued.
David Aiken
Some directors go for a look that doesn't translate very well to the "small screen". Some studios go to great lengths to make their releases show the best that the format can offer. It also makes a difference as to what film stocks were used to make the film in the first place. Some movies are grainy: some movies are less so. This could have been the director's intent (some like the look) or due to the quality of the film which was available at the time. Then there's the DNR (Digital Noise Reduction) that has many a videophile hoopin' and hollerin' about that detail that gets removed. If you don't like the look of grain in the movies you watch, DNR creates a look that doesn't offend. But if you'd rather see what was really on those frames, DNR is rather offensive.
Blu-ray will get you closer to the theater in your home than any previous consumer video format. But poor decisions along the way, from the director to the studio, can hinder what the format is capable of delivering.
Even if the PQ isn't jaw-dropping, unless you're getting a Blu-ray disc from Warner Bros (always bringing up the rear re: audio), the soundtrack on a Blu-ray will have better audio than the DVD version. These days, just about every studio will offer soundtracks in either uncompressed PCM, Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio. And the discs that don't include one of the advanced codecs will most likely have a Dolby Digital track at 640kb/s or a DTS soundtrack at 1.5Mb/s. DVD was 448kb/s for Dolby and 768kb/s for DTS.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: