Blu-ray

[Walter Graff]

Well with the way things are going on the home movie front, bluray might never have legs to survive.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

[Brian Dzyak]

the image is so crisp that it looks like "behind the scenes-esc" footage,

 

 

Hey! That's not nice! ;)

 

Most behind-the-scenes footage is shot now with HD-CAM at 23.98 or HDV.

 

I can't find the info on who shot the EPK/DVD material, but given that it was released in 1993, they probably shot it with BetaCam SP or actually on film.

 

Certainly there is a difference between film and electronic image acquisition, but in saying that "video" is "crisp," isn't that also an implication that film is "fuzzy" and without resolution?

[Chris Burke]

Well with the way things are going on the home movie front, bluray might never have legs to survive.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

 

 

this is what I have thought all along. With the pace at which technology changes, the global recession and the proliferation of streaming content, Blu Ray will go the way of the Laser Disk. DVD may stick around a lot longer. People like "good enough". I have watched several blu ray titles and the overall impression I am left with is "so what", this cost how much? If the players were 99 bucks or less and there were many more really great transfers, then maybe it might take hold. I don't hate blu ray, it just isn't all that great. As a race we are never content with what we have. We have to constantly "fix" or change things. Congress is about to spend and additional 650 million on top of the 1.5 billion already spent on the switch to DTV, just so everyone could have a pretty picture on there TV. These days especially, one has to ask, is it all really worth it?

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, it's worth it -- if you're a cinematographer. I don't know what anybody else gets out of watching HD transfers of movies, but I love it... I get to see every mistake the cinematographer made! I just watched "Nixon" last night on Blu-Ray -- it was like seeing it in the movie theater again.

 

As for delivering HD content, Blu-Ray may not last long compared to other delivery methods, but as someone who doesn't have any pay HD movie channels, and doesn't want to spend time downloading movies online at HD resolution... Blu-Ray is great. I'm already starting to get bummed when I have to watch a movie on DVD instead, after watching a Blu-Ray.

 

But I admit that other methods may become more prevalent, but to some extent, I think already we're seeing something of a data bottleneck on the internet. Unless there is a major effort to update data transmission lines across the country, any HD being delivered over the internet will probably need an awful lot of compression and/or take a lot of time to download (for features.)

 

Now I admit that I gave my 37" 720P Sharp Aquos LCD away to my sister and got a 47" 1080P Sony LCD -- partly because my older Sharp had no HDMI inputs. But on the Sharp Aquos, I had to sit really close to see much improvement from the DVD to the Blu-Ray, but on the larger 1080P Sony, the difference is quite dramatic to me. Now I actually have to sit farther away when watching a DVD just to not be annoyed by the limits of 480P resolution.

[Hal Smith]

I just watched "Nixon" last night on Blu-Ray .........

Oscar screener or the Oliver Stone movie?

[Paul Bruening]

Well with the way things are going on the home movie front, bluray might never have legs to survive.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

 

Motion daguerreotype- Daguerro-Mo. Stick with the tried and true!

[David Mullen ASC]

Oscar screener or the Oliver Stone movie?

 

The Stone movie, not "Frost/Nixon".

 

Wonderful anamorphic photography.

[Walter Graff]

Now I admit that I gave my 37" 720P Sharp Aquos LCD away to my sister and got a 47" 1080P Sony LCD -- partly because my older Sharp had no HDMI inputs. But on the Sharp Aquos, I had to sit really close to see much improvement from the DVD to the Blu-Ray, but on the larger 1080P Sony, the difference is quite dramatic to me. Now I actually have to sit farther away when watching a DVD just to not be annoyed by the limits of 480P resolution.

 

 

And the sad part is that even the best monitors may not be giving you what you expect. A recent look at 125 LCD TV/monitors using FPD Benchmark software via BluRay shows that motion on some HDTV models is reduced to a paultry 260 lines. Sorry to spoil the fun, but as I said in another post, you can start out with as much resolution as you can muster, and broadcast with HDCAM SR but between how stations broadcast these days, and more importantly how poorly the electronics in your TV is designed, you are never getting full HD, BlueRay or not. Here is the latest tests and the resulting vertical resolutions that were measured when motion is introduced to a picture on an LCD using FPD Benchmark software via BluRay. And notice even some of the static resulutions are sometimes well below what you think they are. Point is, HD is a great format on paper, but you at home do not get nearly the quality you tkink you are, regardless of how good your TVs specs are, how much it cost, and how "p" the signal is going into it. And even worse, if you are watching broadcast TV, you are never getting 1080 as the method your TV uses to deintelace a 1080i singal ALWAYS reduces resolution to anywhere from not bad, to horribly. Thankfully contrast is far more important than resolution in determining how you see sharpenss.

 

http://www.film-and-video.com/2008-resolut...s-125-hdtvs.pdf

[K Borowski]

Are you trolling now every thread where I post? Sorry, I won't play along.

 

No, just every thread where you say something ridiculous about how your TV is better than movie theatre.

 

Unfortunately, this seems to be in about 90% of them. :blink:

[K Borowski]

Walter, what, if any, point are you trying to make, that HD and Blu-Ray are wastes of money? That we should go back to SD?

 

The things you say would have been just as applicable to SD sets, i.e. degraded signals, bounces etc. etc. It was probably much much worse just ten years ago when they were still bouncing on analog tapes.

 

But, regardless of the bean-counting, 720p and 1080i/p are clear improvements. Who cares that Blu-Ray sales aren't tanking off? Of course not, we're in a recession! It could take five maybe even ten years to recover, so forgive consumers for not running out to buy Blu-Rays. . .

 

Again, I just don't get the point. At least with my current computer, you cannot get decent HD downloads. Then there is the problem of coming up with a hack to get them back into the TV. Monitors still suck. In fact, the CRTs were arguably better.

 

If you want to go off on a technology, go off on DVDs, which were little to no improvement over S-VHS available a DECADE earlier, along with laserdisc. It was all based on SD TV that had been around for three decades, and was a big scam to sell the same titles to people twice. If you want to gripe about an unnecessary format, DVD takes the cake. They should have brought Blu-ray out in '97. . .

[Walter Graff]

"Walter, what, if any, point are you trying to make, that HD and Blu-Ray are wastes of money? That we should go back to SD?"

 

No Karl, just that the 'nirvana' folks expect with HD is more a tune to 525 TV just with twice as many lines. So while folks expect BluRay to bounce off the screen and give hand jobs, they are finding that 'better' isn't always better to look at. I too have watched some pretty damn good Blu Rays and some that have changed the organic feel of a film so much as to look like sharp 525 video. Not telling folks to trade in their TV, rather just reminding them that in fact they don't really have much more than they did when 525 TV gave you 280 lines. Take it anyway you choose. There is just so much fantasy and conjecture that sometimes I feel like reminding people of some facts. Sad part is these TV set manufatures all spout these rediculous specs that when looked at never achive anything that people pay a lot of money for. Sort of like selling cameras that supposedly make 4k. They don't and 99% of folks who use it don't gain anything with such a high number. Sorry much of my consulting work is loking at reality and tell folks how to imporove the bottom line and that thought process carries over to a lot of posts I make.

[DJ Joofa]

just that the 'nirvana' folks expect with HD is more a tune to 525 TV just with twice as many lines. ... in fact they don't really have much more than they did when 525 TV gave you 280 lines.

 

Unfortunately, a fundamental premise of HDTV has been ignored in comments such as above, and in many audience surveys. The typically larger screen size of an HDTV allows an enhanced image portrayal over standard definition different than mere physical resolution. A standard definition image can result in a pleasing image as long as the camera operator fills up 525/625 line system appropriately. However, an HD camera operator has a different choice while keeping more or less the same "observed resolution" as an SD system by altering the field of view (framing). In this situation, from the same viewing distance away, both SD and HDTV offer similar observed resolution, however, a totally different viewing experience is provided for the user: the HDTV shows more of the scene, more of the total scene action and objects. Thus, the HDTV offers a radically different perspective than SD, and a way of presenting image content that capitalizes on freedom in framing wider and more true-to-life angles of view, and providing a greater sense of reality.

[Alex Lindblom]

Now Karl I have to disagree with you about the DVD comment.

The DVD format has contributed two very important things to the world of film...

1. Correct aspect ratios to the small screen.

This was a very important change, for years we had been watching horrible butchered films in pan and scan. I mean it should have been illegal, nobody would ever get the idea the to crop Mona Lisa just showing her eyes and not her smile. But for years this was exactly what we did with films.

Now granted most release where in 2.35 or 1.78.

But now with the event of Blu Ray we seem to have taken a step even further. With more correct aspect ratios like Sleeping Beauty in it's original 2.55:1 this is an enormous progress from a pan and scan 4:3 version.

Of course I agree with you, that this is just common sense and should have been done a long time ago.




2. Availability Availability Availability...

Availability. I can't stress this point enough. For the film buff to have access to the large library of films available on DVD that was something I could not even dream about as a kid. Now days I can particularity track down anything I want to see.

But even more important is what DVD did for the none film buff. I used to track down and own Beta and VHS tapes, very few of my friends did, a none of there parents.

Today the same people all have a DVD players and all owns at least one DVD, in short DVD has increased the audience for film, and that can only be a good thing in my book.

[Michel Hafner]

No, just every thread where you say something ridiculous about how your TV is better than movie theatre.

Unfortunately, this seems to be in about 90% of them. :blink:

Not really possible since I don't watch my stuff on a TV in the first place.

[Michel Hafner]

Here is the latest tests and the resulting vertical resolutions that were measured when motion is introduced to a picture on an LCD using FPD Benchmark software via BluRay.

Are there also results available for different projectors?

And even worse, if you are watching broadcast TV, you are never getting 1080 as the method your TV uses to deintelace a 1080i singal ALWAYS reduces resolution to anywhere from not bad, to horribly.

Are you saying even now no TVs use proper inverse pulldown when getting film based material with correct pulldown?

[James Martin]

Have you seen Transformers on Blu ray? I don't think so!

 

Toby

 

Yes, I have. It was one of the first HD DVDs I bought. I understand the Blu-Ray encode is much the same (if not identical).

 

The film is over-satured, over-contrasty and very bright. It was directed by Michael Bay, I expect no less.

 

If your Blu-Ray is "worse" than your DVD it is only because the Blu-Ray is closer to MB's vision, which you probably don't like.

 

I haven't seen the DVD version, only the film in cinemas and on HD DVD. They were very very similar.

[Toby L Edwards]

Yes, I have. It was one of the first HD DVDs I bought. I understand the Blu-Ray encode is much the same (if not identical).

 

The film is over-satured, over-contrasty and very bright. It was directed by Michael Bay, I expect no less.

 

If your Blu-Ray is "worse" than your DVD it is only because the Blu-Ray is closer to MB's vision, which you probably don't like.

 

I haven't seen the DVD version, only the film in cinemas and on HD DVD. They were very very similar.

 

 

I saw this Movie at the Theater and I have watched the DVD quite a few times. I love the style of this movie. Yes it is over saturated. The Blu-ray I saw was at one of the big "Electronic Warehouses", maybe there system was not set up correctly or every enhancement available was turned on. I don't know. All I remember was how bad it looked.

It sound like I should give it another chance.

[James Martin]

As the film gets a near-reference quality rating from almost every site (for video), I recommend you try again. Do not ever judge a video based on something set up on a home entertainment store display. Yes, it probably had every image "enhancement" known to man turned on, like so many TV sets do these days. They do absolutely nothing good to the image, I can't think who would believe they do (must be a lot of people).

 

I once saw a UK chain with a row of incredibly expensive HD plasma screens hooked up with composite video! Only one manufacturer actually had a proper HD setup going... bit of a bias methinks.

[Paul Bruening]

This was a very important change, for years we had been watching horrible butchered films in pan and scan. I mean it should have been illegal, nobody would ever get the idea the to crop Mona Lisa just showing her eyes and not her smile. But for years this was exactly what we did with films.

 

Hello Alex,

 

I'm not quoting you to either agree or disagree, which is the normal pattern. I just couldn't help the irony of you using the Mona Lisa as an example of cropping. You may know that the Mona Lisa was originally a larger painting. Mona was literally cut out of the larger canvas and remounted. She is the greatest example of cropping on the planet.

 

Wow. It's so rare that a pattern like this pops up into a general presentation like this. It was a real pleasure to participate in.

[Alex Lindblom]

Hi Paul.

 

Let me first state that I am not an art expert in any way shape or form. I just brought up Mona as she was the first thing that popped in to my mind.

 

So after your comment Paul , I did some digging on the net and this is what I found...

 

The speculations that have floated around about the cropped side pillar in the painting, seemed to have been debunked with the latest big research project on the painting that started in 2004.

 

With the new pictures taken of the Mona Lisa with the frame removed you can clearly see the edges of the painting, now the team says that these are the original edges and not caused by any restoration or cropping efforts.

 

This is a link to an enhanced color picture from the project Mona Lisa original color with the borders clearly visible.

 

Another link Mona History.

 

I quote from the page Historical fact No.4 that refers to the same investigation.

 

"Under Napoleon Leonardo's masterpiece had been reduced by about 10 cm on both the left and right side to fit it into a special and expensive frame. Thereby the columns on the left and right side got lost (Fig. 12). After that the measurements were 77 x 53 cm.

 

In 2005 a team of 39 international experts proved that the painting, which we now find at the Louvre, has not been trimmed. Where is the version of "Mona Lisa", which had been trimmed and which decorated Napoleon's bedroom?"

 

Now this has nothing to do with Blu ray so sorry for the high jack.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Alex Lindblom

[Paul Bruening]

Hey Alex,

 

That's interesting news. Well, I can live with my foot in my mouth. I can't say that I'm happy about all the tuition I paid for to find my foot in my mouth. Do you think my art history teachers will provide a refund? Can I get a fraction of a point shaved off my wife's student loan payments?

[Hal Smith]

That plasmas are better than LCD's is a conclusion fully backed by the fact that post houses are replacing their Sony BVM series monitors with certain Pioneer plasma models.

[Walter Graff]

Sad truth is that plasmas are better than LCDs. LCDs have come a long way in a few years but plasmas still offer better color rendition, viewing angle, and blacks. The only reason LCDs are so prevalent in consumer land is that it cost less to make so manufacturers switched a few years ago, basically eliminating plasmas from the market.

[Walter Graff]

"Mona was literally cut out of the larger canvas and remounted."

 

Too bad it was painted on a piece of poplar wood panel and not canvas. Your teachers need a lesson in art history.

[Walter Graff]

Are you saying even now no TVs use proper inverse pulldown when getting film based material with correct pulldown?

 

 

Just saying that we actually had sort of a setback with the introduction of LCDs. CRT TVs were all interlace. HD CRTs were perfect for 1080i as they did not need to make any conversions. Interlace in/interlace out. But all LCDs must convert broadcast HD to progressive and there is where you have major discrepancies between different manufactures and even different sets from the same manufactures. All LCD HD sets are basically line doublers as each field of a 1080i signal must be converted to frames via line doubling. So with a 60i video signal 60 fields are deinterlaced to 60 frames. And some of you may know the term 'bob' and 'weave' which is used to describe what seems to happen to graphics for one, in such monitors, as they seem to bob up and down due to the deinterlacing. The line doubler regenerates the picture using lines above and below the new picture it creates. But anything diagonal is a problem because the interpolator cannot make something that does not exist above or below. To compensate for this loss, a second circuit weaves the signal to make it look okay to the eye, albeit, creating something that isn't there in the first place and depending on the quality of the electronics, and how many filters are used in what combinations, you have the resulting picture, good, better and best. Add motion to this and now you have to smooth it all out with an edge comb filter. comb filtering always throws away some information. So most all LCDs are truly 1080 lines but only when the image doesn't move and really only 540 lines with any motion due to the interpolation. To make up for the loss, your TV today is more computer than TV using sophisticated chips to sample groups of fields and determine what moves and what does not, then applying what is needed to make the picture appear sharp and complete. And sometimes all these gimmicks such as 120hz refresh help you least when you need them most. Bottom line, the specs on the TVs you buy are about as accurate as weathermen often are. That link I gave earlier to LCD monitor test results show that you simply cannot judge a TV by it's printed specs. And many times what folks tout as a HD 1080P set is really more like a 240line TV set once you turn it on. Thank God for contrast ratio.

 

Read more about it all:

 

http://www.s3graphics.com/en/technology/ch...def_support.jsp

 

 

Or read the AVS boards and learn stuff by some of the smartest experts in the field. I don't mist a day without reading it:

 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=167