| Posted by: 357 at June 13, 2008, 1:04 pm | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | It depends on how the movie was transferred. You guys need to read up on the AVS forum. Films with grain preserve fine details of the picture. There is a process that takes away the grain called Digital Noise Reduction but with that comes less details. Take Patton and Twister on Blu Ray for example. Both films have been DNRed and people look like look wax figures. No details at all in faces. Looks exactly like something you'd see in a wax museum. Different threads with movies that have the best picture quality... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037935 Also read this if you are interested in DNR...
http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...k=view&id=6744 | | Static Link |
| Posted by: the clever guy at June 10, 2008, 7:50 pm | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter I didn't realize that just because a movie did well at the box office that made it good. no, but it helps. and a movie being good is a matter of opinion. but it shouldn't be a matter of "this movies good so lets clean it up more as opposed to this which was shit...so lets not do too much to it." basically, it's cheated the customer and being baised towards whats good and whats bad (if thats the case). | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Dexter at June 9, 2008, 4:46 pm | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | I didn't realize that just because a movie did well at the box office that made it good. Again, we are talking about a Stanley Kubrick film. I'm sure they paid special attention to the BD release. And new releases come out 3 months after their theatrical run. So I'm guessing that means they are rushed out and not cleaned up first. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: the clever guy at June 9, 2008, 3:26 pm | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | ummm....wasn't predator a box office hit? and a good movie? or at the very least, an enjoyable one? if anyone using the example of "technology advances" then why does a movie 7-8 years older (comparing the shining and predator) look better than not only something 7-8 years later....but also a movie 28 years later (the shining vs. a new release)? | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Dexter at June 9, 2008, 7:15 am | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | You have to understand that older movies were not shot using the equipment we have today. They can be cleaned up very nicely, and look stunning. The good movies get better treatment than the bad movies. That's why The Shining looks better than Predator. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: blk_flower at June 4, 2008, 3:40 pm | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | like with dvds some are better than others, read your reviews I guess if you want to buy a movie and the image quality is bad enough and worst if it lacks features then just get the dvd. Most blu ray players upscale anyway. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: the clever guy at June 3, 2008, 7:50 pm | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | it just pisses me off that these movies claim to be "1080p superior high definition picture" when it looks no goddamn different than the standard edition. if they can't get the picture to look, crisp, clear, and super sharp...then why fucking release it for blu-ray?! i still say that the shining was the best blu-ray i have ever fucking seen. it's amazing how a movie that old can look far better than some recent releases, while movies that cmae out later look like shit. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: joeyatog at June 3, 2008, 2:15 pm | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | there are tons of factors as to way x movie doesn't look as good as y movie on blu-ray. i just try and read reviews of the discs to see if they are worth the extra $$$. i recommend dvdfile.com and highdefdigest.com for in-depth critiques about the audio and video transfers for Blu-Rays. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: xseanymacx at June 3, 2008, 11:51 am | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | I read an article a few months back that movies on film are actually easier to convert to 1080p than digital. Has to do with scanning the negatives or something as opposed to reworking every spec on digital. But yeah, take a movie like 300, the BD looks no different than the standard upconverted. It was filmed grainy and remains that way. From what I've noticed with all our Blu-Rays that we play at Sears...the less CGI (unless all animated), the much better it converts to 1080p. 3:10 to Yuma, The Patriot, The Departed...all look stunning in BD. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: #1dvdfan at June 3, 2008, 5:09 am | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | Quote: Originally Posted by FLAME_ON I notice this too... and it really really pissed me off when I saw that Blade Runner: Final Cut doesn't really look all that great on Blu-Ray. I had a couple theories; older movies look like shit, the original print of the movie is in poor shape, or the transfer to Blu-ray was poorly done... I really don't know why but some movies do suck while others are perfect. I'm surprised you said The Shining was great because that disproves my older movie theory. But the same can be said with up-converted DVDs... some look like they're HD and others look like they came from youtube. Yes, it's true older movies look like shit cuase the print is old. They can clean the hell out of it and make it look superb but that will coast them tons and tons of money so they spend a few bucks to make it look at least fair or good, the more clean the print the better. Now days it's all films are digital so every film shot now adays looks FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC!!!!!!! check out Pirates they look AMAZIN... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: FLAME_ON at June 3, 2008, 3:50 am | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | Quote: Originally Posted by APzombie I actually think that Blade Runner is one of the best looking blu-rays out there. I found it noticeably grainy a lot of times. I don't think the picture quality throughout the whole movie is bad, there were just quite a few times I asked myself "what the hell is going on here?" Could be because some of the lighting they use. I don't know. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: APzombie at June 3, 2008, 3:23 am | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | thats why i check highdefdigest.com reviews on the quality before picking any up. i agree about The Shinning. Stunning. not too surprised about Predator, thats one of those Fox catalogs that just gets whored out every other week. I actually think that Blade Runner is one of the best looking blu-rays out there. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: FLAME_ON at June 3, 2008, 2:31 am | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | I notice this too... and it really really pissed me off when I saw that Blade Runner: Final Cut doesn't really look all that great on Blu-Ray. I had a couple theories; older movies look like shit, the original print of the movie is in poor shape, or the transfer to Blu-ray was poorly done... I really don't know why but some movies do suck while others are perfect. I'm surprised you said The Shining was great because that disproves my older movie theory. But the same can be said with up-converted DVDs... some look like they're HD and others look like they came from youtube. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: the clever guy at June 3, 2008, 1:33 am | | Topic: why are some blu-rays...... Forum: JoBlo | | really shitty in quality? i've got a ps3 as a blu-ray player and the sony kdl-40v3000 for a tv, a fucking nice tv if ya ask me. anyways, some blu-rays look phenomenal, while others look like regualr dvds. take for instance, the shining. the shining, IMO, is one the best blu-rays i've ever fucking seen. it has quite possibly the clearest picture and even more so than some more recent flicks. so i figure ALL movies are gonna look fucking great like the shining does. nope. i bought predator on blu-ray when it came out. while certain scenes looked great, others looked like standard dvd format. enter the dragon literally looked like a carbon copy of the standard dvd. first blood looked crappy in some parts and fine in others, first blood pt. 2 looked better for the most part, and i havent exactly tapped into rambo 3 or rambo (new). the point i'm getting at is why do blu-rays say "1080p" but look nothing close to it? why do some blu-rays look awesome (a la the shining) and others pretty shitty (a la ente... | | Read Entire Entry |
|