Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New DVD and BluRay

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » New DVD and BluRay (Page 2)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author

Topic: New DVD and BluRay

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 06-18-2012 06:51 PM

Claude, Yes I have both of those titles. Got them sometime last week. Disney has done a nice job on bring "Evita" to blu-ray for this anniversary edition. "Evita's extra feature are a making of featurette, a music video and a trailer. Better than they did for "The Color of Money". And Sony did a nice job on "The Artist" too. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 06-18-2012 08:28 PM

I guess all good things comes to those who wait so I must be patient until next week for THE ARTIST BD, Bill. At least I will be able to pick up EVITA tomorrow at Best Buy with the special edition of SISTER ACT starring Whoopi Golberg. THat disc will have the two movies on a single blu ray disc. I saw and very much enjoyed the first Movie but never saw SISTER ACT 2 but I heard it is almost as good as the first. I have been waiting for EVITA for a long tIme. Beside the standard and the Criterion laserdisc, I now remember purchasing the DTS laserdisc as well and it was recently sold to Aarron Germain along with my entire DTS laserdisc collection.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 06-19-2012 08:21 AM

I enjoyed both Sister Acts, have not seen them in a few years. I still have my laser disc set up. I've wanting to watch that boxset program "Hollywood" with James Mason after I saw The Artist.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-19-2012 11:29 AM

quote: Robert E. Allen
You might find it interesting (and probably won't agree with me) that my daughter bought me a Panasonic VHS player at a garage sale for $5 for my large selection of VHS tapes. That player gives me picture quality that equals my 5 disc Panasonic DVD player. No one has convinced me that the difference between DVD and BluRay is sufficient to spend the extra money.

This sort of comment really begs a number of questions to be answered. Like, what kind of TV set is being used to compare the image quality between VHS tapes and DVD discs? How are the VHS and DVD players connected to the TV set? DVD picture quality should be quite noticeably better than VHS if the DVD player is connected using S-Video or component video cables (and provided the TV set being used is in good shape).

In order for VHS image quality to be "equal" to that of DVD something must be set up wrong or not working correctly. VHS tapes have only 240 lines of resolution, not to mention a pretty crappy color signal. Hollywood movies on DVD sport 480 lines of resolution, better quality color and can be played in progressive scan if the right combination of player and TV set are used.

Likewise, Blu-ray image quality is clearly superior to DVD. If there really was no visible difference between Blu-ray and DVD there would be no need for HDTV at all since standard definition would be "good enough" for the forseeable future. If 6 times the pixel count means nothing then all the digital projection conversions going on in commercial theaters could have been completed using mere standard definition resolution imaging chips. No need to jettison the first generation of d-cinema projectors with 1280 X 1024 resolution DLP chips. If resolution means nothing movie theaters should have gone the way of video 30 years ago!

I've come across more than a few HDTV setups where the "HD" part of things was not set up properly -like somehow having the Blu-ray player default to 480p SD resolution. That kind of thing tends to happen if the viewer is connecting the player to the TV set using an old S-Video cable. Some people think all they need to do to get "HD" is buy the TV set. They're feeding the TV set nothing but SD resolution stuff and make the snap judgment HDTV isn't that much better than SD. Idiots.

Another obvious question that pops up in my mind when I hear someone claim to see no difference between HD and SD material is this: how good is this person's eye sight?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-19-2012 03:24 PM

quote: Robert E. Allen
That player gives me picture quality that equals my 5 disc Panasonic DVD player.

That's pretty much impossible, unless you have a really bad (or old tube-type) TV.

The difference between DVD and Blu-Ray is definitely noticable, but not as striking as comparing VHS to DVD.

And yes, I do think Joe R. is definitely a techno-geek.

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 06-19-2012 03:47 PM

Coming from my 100 inch screen and projected from a DLP home theater projector,the gap between DVD and Bluray is huge.
It's not just resolution but the absence of artifacts which give it a clean film like look.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 06-19-2012 03:51 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
VHS tapes have only 240 lines of resolution

If you're measuring by a single field, then yes. But then again, so does DVD if he has it hooked up any other way than component. But VHS can resolve around 300 "lines" horizontally. Super VHS claims 400 or so, LaserDisc 425. Both are waaaaay below the theoretical NTSC maximum of 720.

| IP: Logged

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 06-20-2012 03:11 AM

Sorry guys, but since I can count the eyebrow hairs on the actors in either format it's sharp enough for me. My vision is 20/20 corrected.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 06-20-2012 07:48 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson

Likewise, Blu-ray image quality is clearly superior to DVD. If there really was no visible difference between Blu-ray and DVD there would be no need for HDTV at all since standard definition would be "good enough" for the forseeable future. If 6 times the pixel count means nothing then all the digital projection conversions going on in commercial theaters could have been completed using mere standard definition resolution imaging chips. No need to jettison the first generation of d-cinema projectors with 1280 X 1024 resolution DLP chips. If resolution means nothing movie theaters should have gone the way of video 30 years ago!

Resolution isn't the only factor: bitrate (the volume of data used to represent the image and sound within a given time period), the source materials used to master the DVD or BD, and the mastering process itself also affect the subjective perceived viewing and listening experience for the end user.

I've seen cheaper, single layer BDs with bitrates down into the low teens of mbps (megabits per second). That's only a little higher than the theoretical maximum of a DVD, which is 10.08. Of course DVDs vary, too: longer films often drop down into the 3-5 range, which is needed if you're going to fit three hours onto an 8.4gb disc. As a general rule, it's the high quality DVDs with bitrates that are consistently in the 7-9 range that can look very good indeed when uprezzed, leading some to opine that there is little subjective quality difference between DVDs and BDs.

If your low bitrate BD is also transferred from a release print rather than a specially graded IP or IN (high contrast and so not much detail in the midtones), then you're not going to see much of an improvement over a professionally done DVD, either. But a BD scanned from a specially graded element, on a high end machine, by someone who knows what he or she is doing, and then encoded in H.264 with bitrates that are consistently in the high 30s (the theoretical maximum for a BD is 48mpbs) is a totally different animal.

So all other factors being equal, there is a lot more video and audio information in a BD than in a DVD, and you'll see that on the screen if your equipment is set up correctly. But those other factors very rarely are equal in practice, which makes the comparison a subjective and difficult one.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-20-2012 11:15 AM

quote: Robert E. Allen
Sorry guys, but since I can count the eyebrow hairs on the actors in either format it's sharp enough for me.

It's all in what floats your own personal boat. However one thing you haven't mentioned: What kind of TV you're using. If you run a VHS, DVD or Blu-Ray through an old Zenith with a 19" tube, they'll all look about the same.

| IP: Logged

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 06-20-2012 11:36 AM

It's a 32 inch Panasonic Mike.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-20-2012 11:47 AM

My eye sight is pretty good, enough to clearly see a big difference in image quality between well mastered releases on DVD and Blu-ray. The difference has been big enough that I only buy or rent movies on Blu-ray. I'm done with DVD.

quote: Leo Enticknap
Resolution isn't the only factor: bitrate (the volume of data used to represent the image and sound within a given time period), the source materials used to master the DVD or BD, and the mastering process itself also affect the subjective perceived viewing and listening experience for the end user.

Bit rate is the primary reason why I rent movies on physical Blu-ray discs rather than use any Internet-based streaming services or even order PPV/VOD movies via satellite. The Blu-ray version typically has a much higher bit rate (along with having better quality audio too).

The only thing that has soured me lately to renting Blu-ray discs is the Hollywood studios' new practice of making separate rental specific discs that are very different from the version one would buy via retail. The rental discs typically have no extras. They also have forced trailers and TV commercials that cannot by skipped by pressing the chapter button; the viewer must fast-forward through them instead. The fast forward button doesn't work on those damned FBI/Interpol logos. Some rental Blu-ray discs don't even have chapter stops. At least with a rental VHS tape one could cue up the beginning of the movie and then start it from that point later when everyone is ready to watch the show. That can't be done with those rental discs unless one just leaves the player on pause for a long time.
[Mad]

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 06-20-2012 12:20 PM

Yes, it''s a 32 iinch Panasonic, but you have not said if it is a standard or a high definition set, Robert. About three years ago, there were several discs I wanted very baldly but they were exclusive to Blu Ray so I bought them along with a BD player and watched them on a SD set and could hardly see the difference in picture quality. After buyiing many more BDs and watching them on my SD set, I eventually purchased a 1080p Samsung HDTV set and I was was totally amazed at the difference in the picture quality. In HD, the picture was just like I was watching an actual film at a theatre. I never felt this way when I watched Beta, VHS, Laserdiscs and DVDs on a standard television set.

If your set is indeed HD, it could very be 720p instead of the full 1080p maximum standard of HDTV and there is a difference in picture quality between the two. From what I had seen , good DVDs can look almost as good as a BD in 720p but the difference is very apparent on a 1080p set. At least to my 72 year pair of eyes it does.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 06-20-2012 01:46 PM

It's not an HD set. But with the picture as sharp as it is (sharper than any I've ever seen in a theatre) I can see no need for replacing it. I'm not really interested in counting the pores on their skin. I just assume they have them.

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 06-20-2012 01:49 PM

What more can I say [Confused]

-Claude

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.