blu rays

Daybehavior

Daybehavior

New member
I can understand movies shot in high definition being transferred to bluray, but is there really that big of a difference for movies not shot in HD? I'm seeing so many movies being released on bluray and I'm wondering if there really is a legitimate reason for doing so or if its because bluray is the new home media player now. Many 70's and 80's movies are being released and I gotta wonder what more they could do that couldn't be done on DVD.

I ask because I saw this movie at Walmart from the 1930's on Blu Ray. Is that really necessary?! A bluray can hold 25 gigs and that movie couldn't have been more than a few megabytes. Don't get my wrong I've seen black and white shows that look 100x sharper and amazing on DVD than on TV / VHS, but putting it on Bluray seems like overkilll.
 
Interesting question, and the answer is.. maybe!
First off, Blue Ray means nothing unless you have a newer TV that can handle all of the extra little digital bits, otherwise, you'll be seeing the same old resolution.
Second. Films are recorded in Analog, I know it's kind of weird to call a film analog, but I don't know if there's another word for non digital film. Anyway... If the original film from the 1930s is still in pretty good shape, yes, then it would be worth it, to some people anyway. Any film recorded digitally is by definition, limited to how many bits of information it records. The analog version is going to show you more detail which was still better than any current digital, even in the 1930s. THEREFORE, blue ray is going to show you more detail than regular DVD quality.
IF the original reel isn't in great shape, then no matter how many pixels or memory you record you're not going to get a decent high resolution.
Of course, the question you're really asking is.. Is this worth it "to me".
Probably not, but there's still a lot of sentimental folks out there who might enjoy watching the movies from the 30s a little closer to what they might have seen on the big screen.
I hope that understandable, and helpful.
And sorry about the mixed up terminology. ROFL
 
Last edited:
Daybehavior said:
I can understand movies shot in high definition being transferred to bluray, but is there really that big of a difference for movies not shot in HD? QUOTE]

Also.. let me answer this.. movies are not shot in HD, they are recorded in film. The reel is then transfered digitally to whatever quality is needed, HD, super dooper HD or even low resolution.
You should know these things, man! rofl.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for the informative post. I thought that all movies are now shot using digital means now since everything is all...digital. So if I follow you right. NOTHING will ever look as good as original "film" but Blu ray closes the gap further than DVD? I would think by now technology has advanced to where anything we have would supersede a decades old medium.

I did a bit of checking and I found out people notice a greater difference in SOUND quality more than actual picture. I really don't care because I'm not an audiophile since I have tinnitus and everything tends to sounds stuffy to me anyway. It's scary to me some people can tell the difference between mp3s encoded in 128kbs and 192kbs and things of that nature. The only thing I can tell you is that a CD or mp3 sounds a hell of a lot better than the radio :p

Another funny thing - Dragon Ball Z. They used to releases DVDs with only 3 episodes on them when they could've easily fit 10. Now they release an astounding 13 episodes per blu-ray when they can probably fit least two seasons on one disk....
 
Last edited:
Daybehavior said:
Thank you for the informative post. I thought that all movies are now shot using digital means now since everything is all...digital. So if I follow you right. NOTHING will ever look as good as original "film" but Blu ray closes the gap further than DVD? I would think by now technology has advanced to where anything we have would supersede a decades old medium.
Click to expand...
Yup, Hollywood still uses film, nothing like it.
You should watch more of the "making of" extras on the DVDs... and pay attention! LOL
and yes, that is basically right, but HD will give you all the detail your eyes will ever be able to handle. If the technology was any sharper you wouldn't even notice.
And that's basically the business side of it, because no sane person would ever need more detail than what's available now.
Ultimately, if the market demanded it, (which it never will) film and digital could be make so good that you'd have to stop every frame and look at it with a magnifying glass to see every detail.
The film actually does have a bottleneck, but it is basically how clear of an imagine it is able to take, and how clear the lens can put the picture on the film. But the technology to do this today has far exceeded any reasonable need for detail. AND IMO so has Blue Ray, so don't expect any more upgrades until we get holograph projectors. I can't say film from decades ago is better than digital today, because the chemicals, film, and camera have all improved. I can't really make that comparison.
One interesting point to note though, that Blue Ray produces better audio than DVD, YET... people aren't willing the price for higher quality CDs (which already expensive enough) but if you ask any hardcore audiophile, CDs are really crappy compared to Vinyl (analog)...
so.. there you go.
 
Last edited:
Monster said:
Also.. let me answer this.. movies are not shot in HD, they are recorded in film. The reel is then transfered digitally to whatever quality is needed, HD, super dooper HD or even low resolution.
You should know these things, man! rofl.
Click to expand...

Huh? There are high-definition cameras which film producers use that record video in HD. If they don't use those cameras, then the movie can't been seen in HD. It's not like they can magically take the standard-def film from any old camera and turn it into HD at their leisure. They have to record it in HD in order for us to see it in HD.

Just like 3-D movies. They can't take the film and convert it to 3-D; it has to be shot in 3-D while it's being filmed.

*EDIT

What they CAN do is use current technology to take older movies and TV shows, and improve the video quality. But, that quality wouldn't be considered high-definition, because HD picture can only be achieved by using HD cameras.
 
Or maybe mostly right?
We are in a time of transition, that's for sure.

1st: Film is the only medium which can be projected onto a big screen in a theater. Yes, there are digital projection devices, but they do not compare to current wide screen film projectors.

2nd: Film is non-volatile. It can't be lost or corrupted because of a power surge or loss of power. The actual production of a movie may be done in a digital medium, but the end product which makes it to the public in a movie theater is a film strip which runs through a projector. Film is cheap and film doesn't forget.

The movie industry is moving to all digital cameras to do production instead of huge film cameras and actual film. Then they do editing and post production in the studio with digital editors and such, add special effects, again digitally and then they transfer the final cut to a film strip. Film is still the final stage since there is no adequate projection system for digital media directly to the big screen. Theaters will NEVER go away. A good example is the movie Master and Commander, which I just saw recently on the tube. It was NOTHING compared to seeing the whole thing in a decent theater! Maybe you do not appreciate the magnitude of a theater, but I and a lot of other people do. It may be that people CAN watch at home for a fraction of the cost, but the important part about going to the theater is the magnitude of the experience. The sound system in your home does not hold a candle to the modern day movie theater. Things like soap operas on TV skip the final transfer to film since it will not be shown in a theater and never be seen on a screen bigger than the largest TV, so in that sense, TV programs, you are right, they are moving to all digital productions. But, even on the best and biggest HD-TV, Master and Commander STILL looks better on the big screen.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Monster said:
^ or I could be wrong.
added:
or... sort of wrong....
Digital cinematography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guess they do sometimes, but not always........
Click to expand...

Well, the point you're making is right. You can take old film or standard definition film and enhance the quality of the picture to make it look A LOT better (just take a look at TV shows filmed in the 80's and 90's, watch it in high-definition and notice how much better it looks compared to back when it was originally aired). But, it's not like you can watch episodes of Full House in actual high-definition, because, when it was filmed, it wasn't filmed in high-def. The quality of that film can be dramatically enhanced, but it wouldn't be considered high-definition.

What I was saying is that you can't just take any piece of film and transform it into high-definition. Think of it this way...

You record music onto a cassette tape using a boom box. When you're done recording, you hit "Play" and listen to the music. It doesn't sound bad, but it definitely sounds like it's being played on a cassette tape - because it is.

Now, professionals can take that music, clear up some of the sound, transfer it onto a CD and it will sound better than the original recording. You can take that CD and listen to it, and it will sound much better than what it did while the data was on a cassette tape. But, it still won't sound as good as music that has been originally recorded onto a CD. The quality of CD sound is much, much better than that of a cassette tape. And, no matter how much enhancement is made, music originally recorded onto a cassette tape will never sound nearly as good as music originally recorded onto a CD.

The same goes for picture/film. At least, that's how I understand it anyway.
 
Analog gives you the full spectrum of what you see and here. Digital only gives you what it's programmed to let you hear.
Here's the best comparison I can make.
If you take a very crappy digital picture, it could look like this:
This picture is clearly John Goodman. And no matter how many pixels you include in the picture, you won't ever be able to see more details if you look more closely.
8bit_lebowski02.jpg

Sure you can a clear picture, a clear sound from digital, but that's not issue, not for me anyway.
High def is still pixels, a more pixels than normal DVD, but it's still pixelated.
Analog is everything you see.
If you take a super high definition picture of a skyline in digital, you'll get a great picture,
BUT.. if you take a super high def. picture of a skyline in analog, you can get as close as you want, just like using a telescope.
That's how satellites picture can identify license plates from space without having to find the specific car beforehand. cuz it's analog.
The pictures they take are usually the size of a small city.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top