DVDizzy Forum

You don't understand.

Like I said, many of those the scenes are actually sharper in the laserdisc version.
Sharper than the Blu ray.

The whole extreme blurry-ness thing is just not present there.
It's not because a blurry format looks sharper whatsoever, it's a different thing.

And now you're saying "Snow White looks quite soft because of the Technicolor process used back then", so this doesn't match the artificial sharpness in many other Blu ray scenes either.

Double standards again.

SpringHeelJack wrote:I hear if you say "Bloody Marky" in front of a plasma screen TV three times, he appears and destroys all your Blu-ray discs.

omg if i were drinking milk it would surely have come spurting our of my nostrals

Marky_198 wrote:You don't understand.

Like I said, many of those the scenes are actually sharper in the laserdisc version.
Sharper than the Blu ray.

The whole extreme blurry-ness thing is just not present there.
It's not because a blurry format looks sharper whatsoever, it's a different thing.

And now you're saying "Snow White looks quite soft because of the Technicolor process used back then", so this doesn't match the artificial sharpness in many other Blu ray scenes either.

Double standards again.

Okay, what? What artificial sharpness? There is none in Snow White, or any other Disney Classic release on Blu-ray. All I said was that the restoration brought out more artifacts, because it's done in a higher resolution than the one done for Laserdisc. If the Laserdisc is in fact sharper, than it's a fault of the Laserdisc transfer, not the one on the Blu-ray.
But I never said it was sharper, those are two different things. It would be nice if you would actually read the link I also put in my last post, that would clarify a lot of things and hopefully will stop the complaining.

This is Marky, he'' never, never, NEVER even consider even the most minimalistic possibility that he might be wrong. Minimalistic ends between 1% and 200%.

Marky honest question why do you hold the laser disc in high regard??

SpringHeelJack wrote:I hear if you say "Bloody Marky" in front of a plasma screen TV three times, he appears and destroys all your Blu-ray discs.

I nearly died laughing. Kudos to you, mister .

I did it, and Marky turned out to be Micheal Keaton!

Now, I have to go rebuy 26 movies.

Marky wrote:You don't understand.

You should get that printed on a t-shirt.

Marky wrote:Like I said, many of those the scenes are actually sharper in the laserdisc version.
Sharper than the Blu ray.

When the day comes that a 425-line laserdisc can produce a sharper image than a 1080p blu-ray, I'll not only eat a straw hat, but I'll roast it in an oven with some mixed vegetables and break open that bottle of merlot I've been saving for a special occasion.

Marky, really, do yourself a favor. Read the link that Kubrickfan posted, and check out the list of articles in the second link. It's by Robert A. Harris. A well-known PROFESSIONAL film restoration and film preservation expert. Someone who knows a helluva lot more about film restoration than you ever could, because he's worked in the field extensively. He's got far more restoration credits than you ever will, and he has far more resources than nostalgic memories, old laserdiscs, and some theatrical posters and lobby cards. If you don't believe his words, then you're a lost cause. Anyone that arrogant to think they know better than the likes of Robert A. Harris or Theo Gluck or any other professional restoration team deserves to be ridiculed.

A few words about..Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs -- in Blu-ray

Yellow Layer Failure, Vinegar Syndrome and Miscellaneous Musings by Robert A. Harris

albert

Escapay wrote:

Marky wrote:You don't understand.

You should get that printed on a t-shirt.

WE should get the printed on a shirt. UD fundraiser, anyone?

If I weren't broke, I'd support that in a heartbeat!

Although you know I would entertain his arguements if he wasn't using a freaking laser disc as reference quality. Laser disc was the blu ray of the VCR days - higher qualty, more expensive, more features...so what's to say that laser disc is the end all be all...because you grew up on it? The difference between the 2001 restoration of Snow White and 2009 isn't really that drastic so I'm going to say they are getting as close as they can to the original intension.

"I don't care that so many scenes are ectremely blurry in the new version, because Blu ray can be the only right thing.
I also don't care that all these scenes were in fact sharper in the laserdisc version, because that must have been wrong and artificial sharpness".

And then expect people to say "you understand"?

Two images, exactly the same apart from size/resolution. I've deliberately blurred the lines on the big image and then shrunk the blurred image down to approximately the same ratio as NTSC resolution to Blu-ray resolution.



Can you see how the blurring is more obvious and noticable on the higher-resolution image? Can you see how reducing the number of available points of definition helps to sharpen an image?

Apply the same technique to a "real-world" image such as the "You Don't Understand T-Shirt" (with a slight unfocus filter applied)



See how the smaller image looks "sharper"? Do you understand now why a laserdisc with only 480 lines may appear sharper than a blu-ray with 1080 lines, even if the master image exactly the same? (There's also the fact you're likely to be watching a HD image on a LCD display rather then a CRT (which I assume you view the LD on), and CRT's a much more forgiving when it comes to image imperfections - but that's another issue)

Its just simple logic - if a higher-resolution image can show more detail than a lower-resolution image, then it can also show more flaws than a lower-resolution image should flaws exist on the master image. Surely you can understand that?

How easily the text on that T-shirt could be reformatted: "You don't understand, Marky!"

Marky_198 wrote:"I don't care that so many scenes are ectremely blurry in the new version, because Blu ray can be the only right thing.
I also don't care that all these scenes were in fact sharper in the laserdisc version, because that must have been wrong and artificial sharpness".

And then expect people to say "you understand"?

I've never even seen the Laserdisc, so I can't comment on that. It is likely however, that it was sharpened, because that happened with a lot of Laserdiscs and VHS tapes. Heck, even in the early dvd days, it happened too often. I've also never said that the Blu-ray can always be right. It is in this case, for many reasons I've already mentioned.
I also love the fact that you can be unreasonable, but we somehow can't. If I change a few words of your post, I can sum up nearly all of the comments you made about every Blu-ray of every Classic:

Marky_198 wrote:"I don't care that so many scenes are ectremely blurry in the old version, because Laserdisc can be the only right thing.
I also don't care that all these scenes were in fact sharper in the Blu-ray version, because that must have been wrong and artificial sharpness".

And then expect people to say "you understand"?

2099net wrote:Two images, exactly the same apart from size/resolution. I've deliberately blurred the lines on the big image and then shrunk the blurred image down to approximately the same ratio as NTSC resolution to Blu-ray resolution.

You are right, it IS logic.

So in the end, which image is prettier/better to look at?

I think the second image.

So the basic discussion is, what is better for the classics?

...so the classics should all be viewed on a iPod for maximum clarity?

SpringHeelJack wrote:...so the classics should all be viewed on a iPod for maximum clarity?

LOL....the logic behind the "digital copy" is finally revealed.