DVDizzy Forum

To echo BellesPrince, I am fairly certain films were downgraded to be seen on DVD due to limitations of DVDs capacity.

So really, Blu-Ray is closer than DVD in terms of how it was meant to be seen.

Of course, where does it end? If they come up with a new format that will be closer than Blu-Ray- I guess it all depends on how much you care.

Personally DVD always seemed okay but when you compare it to Blu-Ray, you wonder how did I accept that before? But when you look at the Blu-Ray screenshots, you just have to wonder, how the hell do they improve that, is there really anything to improve?

And of course this was once said about DVD so I guess it just takes time for something else to do the same though I don't believe it can...

Thanks for the interesting contributions everyone has had to this discussion.

If this has already been discussed at great length, I apologize for bringing this up again, I had trouble finding the previous discussion with the search tool. Maybe I didn't try hard enough.

Someone mentioned how beautiful Sleeping Beauty was on Blu-ray...it seems like that is the sort of film that would certainly be well served by high definition. The realism the animators were striving for and the detailed backgrounds seem like they beg for HD.

It is interesting some people have said the film were made in HD and they were downgraded onto DVD. I'm not too sure about this. Films have always been plagued with little specs until the digital era. DVDs have been able to eliminate these. My understanding is that resolution is based on how many dot are used on the television screen. At the movie theatre there aren't really dots, exactly. You just have the bright light projecting through the film onto the screen. I wonder how to compare Blu-ray to a theatrical experience before the days of digital projectors. Is there a way to determine what "resolution" a film projectors is similar to?

Albert commented on live-action films (Albert always has something very intelligent to say about Disney everything). I can see Disney spending money trying to make Mary Poppins look HD and I can even imagine that for 20,000 Leagues. But films like The Great Locomotive Chase and the True-Life Adventures...I don't see how the details of nature...things like fur and leaves...can be made clearer for HD. You can't make the picture look better than the prints Disney has in hand. I can't imagine Disney actually reinvesting money on the True-Life Adventures...it seems like the current form is the best we will ever see them.

It seems to me that some older special effects would look much worse on HD. (They would become far more obvious.) Some of the blue screen shots already look kind of rough on some of these older live-action films on DVD. It seems to be that HD would make the foreground even clearer and make the background look even worse. (I am thinking of films like Davy Crockett and the River Pirates when they are on the rapids in their keelboats.)

I like the comment where someone said he basically isn't replacing his older DVDs with new Blu-rays. But he is buying newer films on Blu-ray. That seems like it might be the best route. I would guess films from here on out will be designed to shine on HD. Perhaps older films weren't designed to undergo so much scrutiny.

You're missing the point - film may be a projected medium, but the resolution of film is far, far higher than DVD. It is already a High Definition medium. I'd suggest doing some reading around websites like www.bluray.com or the HiDef forums.

milojthatch wrote:Lastly is the debate when it comes to films made before HD, does HD really make them "better?" Cleaning film up is one thing, but were these old film MEANT for HD? Do they loose something not tied to technology along the way that makes them special? I'm reminded of an episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond" to illustrate my pint better. In the episode, Ray feels the need to make up for his father's old jazz records that he believes he ruined as a child. He buys the same albums but this time as CD's. His father hates them, he wants jazz RECORDS. Ray tries to tell them that the CD are better, that they restore and just sound better. His dad isn't buying it. He prefers the sound of music on vinyl, as this particular music was originally made for.

If you choose to make this argument, you have to realize that the old films were meant to be on film, not a television broadcast, VHS, LD, DVD, or Blu-ray (all of which are technically "downgrades" since they have a more limited capacity than film). However, Blu-ray's resolution is currently the closest, most accurate way to reproduce the original version as seen in the theaters, thus at this point is probably the closest format you can enjoy aside from adding a film projector to your home theater.

Let me take a moment to clarify that I don't claim Blu-ray is the be-all end-all format, nor am I one of those stating that there's no excuse not to upgrade. To each his own. I still enjoy the occasional VHS in addition to my DVDs after all, and I won't be upgrading every single title. This isn't directed at you, but I find it odd when people in general argue that Blu-ray is "too HD" for films that predate the digital age. Unless a bad restoration is involved, I don't understand how a film can be too high-def, too clear, etc. when the original film reel carries more visual information per frame than Blu-ray can. It's not like film has to be "upgraded" to reach Blu-ray quality when it already surpasses it.

As for records vs. CDs, I see it as a different argument. Records of course are analog and capture the entire sound wave. But since CDs are digital, they do not record the full sound wave; they capture the information as approximate "steps." Distortion is eminent since sound transitions can change too quickly for the sample rate. Plus I believe people enjoy the "warmth" and physical aspects of a tangible needle played on a grooved record. People also have their reasons to prefer the less fragile CDs, especially for their convenience and versatility with playing. You can't exactly play a record in the car for example, and you don't have to worry about the CD degrading with each play like a record does due to the physical contact.

It just comes down to personal preference. You can certainly say that DVD is good enough (as I often believe it is), but you can't deny that some people have valid reasons to prefer upgrading to Blu-ray.

If you think older live action movies don't get any better in HD go check 'The Sound of Music' on Bluray, that one is freaking awesome! believe me, no screen cap do it justice, you just gotta see it yourself...

And about film resolution, well, film doesn't have any resolution actually, cause it's not digital, you can project a film on a huge wall and it'll still look good. You cannot do that with a DVD, not even with a Bluray. It's like when you take somebody's picture with an old photo camera, you're able to make huge sized copies out of a negative but not so much from an already printed photo.

MichaeLeah wrote:If this has already been discussed at great length, I apologize for bringing this up again, I had trouble finding the previous discussion with the search tool. Maybe I didn't try hard enough.

There have been previous discussions (the most notable one here, but they generally get ugly and eventually mudslinging occurs between the "upgrade, you fool!" Blu-Ray supporters and the "stop keeping-up-with-the-joneses, you fool!" DVD supporters. So a new thread that has so far been calmly discussed likely would've been better anyway. When Luke criticized Disney's decision to only send the Blu-Ray/DVD combo for Pinocchio: Platinum Edition, there was some heavy discussion from both sides about it, and since then (for me at least), that thread has soured a bit and would be better off unbumped.

MichaeLeah wrote:It is interesting some people have said the film were made in HD and they were downgraded onto DVD. I'm not too sure about this. Films have always been plagued with little specs until the digital era. DVDs have been able to eliminate these. My understanding is that resolution is based on how many dot are used on the television screen. At the movie theatre there aren't really dots, exactly. You just have the bright light projecting through the film onto the screen. I wonder how to compare Blu-ray to a theatrical experience before the days of digital projectors. Is there a way to determine what "resolution" a film projectors is similar to?

BellesPrince and PheR already touched a bit on this. Film isn't really something that is measured in pixels, not the way that digitally-shot material or authored-to-disc home media is. Film itself is still an analog medium, and the way we measure its pixels is based on the quality of the digital scanner and whatever amount of pixels it gets scanned in.

According to Brad Templeton: (bold emphasis mine)

• The very short answer is that there are around 20 million "quality" pixels in a top-quality 35mm shot. That's a shot with a tripod, mirror-up, with a top-rate lens and the finest-grained film, in decent light. 12 million are more typical for "good" shots. There may be as few as 4 million "quality" pixels in a handheld shot with a point-and-shoot camera or camera with a poor lens. And of course if focus is poor, or light is poor, or the camera was not held steady, the number will drop down below the 1-2 million pixels of the modern consumer digicam. Of course, one can have a bad shot with a digital camera too, not using all its resolving ability. However, few pick their gear with the plan of shooting badly.

So film itself, if shot under the best conditions, will still always look much better than a Blu-Ray, a DVD, a Laserdisc, a VHS, etc. Simply because it holds much more information than what - as others have said - a downgraded home media release can offer. The only reason people assume pre-HD (itself a bit of a misnomer, as only the ability to see HD in the home is new, the concept itself and the ability to see "HD" in theatres has been around for decades) can only look as good as DVD offers is because that's as good as they've ever seen it. Not enough people have seen older movies on the silver screen anymore, and they automatically assume that the version they've seen and are familiar with is the only right one.

There are, however, some digital formats that can surpass film. The best models of the Red Digital Camera, for instance, captures images in like, a HUGE amount of megapixels that generally trump even the already-impressive 4K resolution of regular digital cinema. Peter Jackson's The Hobbit actually will be shot with Red cameras.

At the end of the day, there is still something to the filmic look of 35mm that warms most people. Mr. Yagoobian said it best, that watching an older film in HD looks very much like the film itself, not just a movie on TV. I'd still give my right foot and left thumb to see the Greer Garson/Ronald Colman melodrama Random Harvest projected in theatres, or simply settle for it on Blu-ray even though it's not a movie that would really *wow* a person the way that something like Lawrence of Arabia or Star Wars would.

MichaeLeah wrote:I don't see how the details of nature...things like fur and leaves...can be made clearer for HD.

PheR already mentioned The Sound of Music, and I'd have to echo their sentiments. The level of detail that's now available is simply amazing. In the restoration featurette on the Blu-Ray, they mention how in the VHS/LD/DVD, when Maria does her big mountain twirl, people only saw it as her standing on grass. But with Blu-Ray, they can actually see that there are various flowers and such that are within the grass. What was once just a green blob on the screen actually is individual pieces of grass swaying in the breeze, along with flowers peppered here and there that were once unseen to the naked eye.

MichaeLeah wrote:I can't imagine Disney actually reinvesting money on the True-Life Adventures...it seems like the current form is the best we will ever see them.

I know, it's sad. Disney is a rare company among its contemporaries, as they have done pretty much everything to try and suppress their past (major hits, aside) rather than celebrate it. They're so focused on keeping current and only re-introducing the big hitters that they allow their older material to languish in archives and put it out in small increments as either the stupidly-limited-issued Treasures or the equally-stupid DMC exclusive. Of course, they also have a much smaller film library than any other studio, so even though they do have the money to restore/remaster each title and give it a stellar treatment, they still don't.

On the other end of the spectrum, Warner Bros. has a very rich library of material (their own studio's work, the complete RKO film library, the complete pre-1986 MGM film library, and whatever else they acquired) at their disposal. They can shell out the money for Ultra-Resolution restorations of moneymakers like Gone with the Wind, whilst still throwing very-nice bones toward some of the more niche consumers, such as when they had great boxsets for Film Noir, Classic Musicals from the Dream Factory, Signature Collection, etc. I really hate their decision to go DVD-R with the Warner Archive Collection, but given that catalogue titles on DVD generally don't sell as well as new releases, I can see why they ultimately went that route. Still, I miss their glory years of 2004-2008, when they had great boxsets and individual releases, often remastered well-enough on DVD and with nice extras (commentaries/featurettes/radio programs/trailers/vintage shorts from the era). Actually, a lot of major studios don't get much revenue in their classics catalogue except for the big hitters, and so it makes sense that for a while we'll see less classics on Blu-Ray than we did with DVD. Still, with the announcements of such titles coming to Blu-Ray like All About Eve, An Affair to Remember, Ben-Hur, Citizen Kane, and the recent Star Wars announcement, 2011 is shaping up to be a very good year so far. And 2012 promises Singin' in the Rain, which will make me a very happy camper. Now...if only Disney would get on the ball and do more with their live-action catalogue. I'm still waiting for The Rocketeer in 1080p glory.

albert

I had hoped this discussion was dead, as to me it seemed like the horse was beaten to death enough, but I'm game for another round.

There are three things I'd point out. The first is cost and the reality, how many times do you REALLY want to buy "The Lion King" or "Snow White?" If you already bought many of these classics on VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD, are you willing to once again spend hard earned money on the newest version of these films? Are you willing to say a decade from now re-re-buy them AGAIN on whatever is next in physical home entertainment after Blu Ray? Will there ever be a release that is not "the greatest version on this film ever released?"

Next, is extra features. Most Blu Ray's have really sucked at carrying over extras from the DVD's, even the Laserdiscs. The "Fantasia" films may be the best example of this.

Lastly is the debate when it comes to films made before HD, does HD really make them "better?" Cleaning film up is one thing, but were these old films MEANT for HD? Do they loose something not tied to technology along the way that makes them special? I'm reminded of an episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond" to illustrate my point better. In the episode, Ray feels the need to make up for his father's old jazz records that he believes he ruined as a child. He buys the same albums but this time as CD's. His father hates them, he wants jazz RECORDS. Ray tries to tell them that the CD are better, that they are restore and just sound better. His dad isn't buying it. He prefers the sound of music on vinyl, as this particular music was originally made for.

If none of these things matter to you, then I say, enjoy your new Blu Rays. But, if even one of these points make sense, you may want to enjoy what you have already. I for one have gotten in to Blu Ray, but I'm VERY particular about what I buy. First rule is I don't buy films I already own, I only buy new films on Blu Ray. I'm totally ok with my old DVD's (and even buy new ones still) and feel both can sit together just fine. But I understand that not everyone feels this way, so to each his own.

milojthatch wrote: Lastly is the debate when it comes to films made before HD, does HD really make them "better?" Cleaning film up is one thing, but were these old films MEANT for HD? Do they loose something not tied to technology along the way that makes them special? I'm reminded of an episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond" to illustrate my point better. In the episode, Ray feels the need to make up for his father's old jazz records that he believes he ruined as a child. He buys the same albums but this time as CD's. His father hates them, he wants jazz RECORDS. Ray tries to tell them that the CD are better, that they are restore and just sound better. His dad isn't buying it. He prefers the sound of music on vinyl, as this particular music was originally made for.

That's actually an interesting point. A conversion from analog to digital is no easy task as music releases have shown. That's why we see remasters. In films that's why we see new restorations. If making an exact digital copy was so easy we wouldn't keep seeing these new restorations. The Blu-ray medium increases resolution and decompresses audio. Remember that the original film is not of lower quality. Like with CD remastering whose intent is to get as close to the original source as possible, that's the goal of restorations and mediums with larger space for higher resolutions and uncompressed audio. If any information is lost anywhere it's due to the restoration and not HD.

I agree with enigmawing though in that vinyl vs CDs are a whole different ball game.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:The line art for animation never looked pixalated when drawn/painted and certianly never when projected. Even unrestored 35mm films don't have that look when put through a projector and viwed on the big screen. When SD content is viewd on HD displays (especially up close) it suffers from the minimal resolituion of older formats like DVDs and ends up lacking in sharpness.

Blu-ray is designed with HD displays in mind and all content shot on film (including animation) will look closer to the quality of theatrical presentations as a result.

As others have said, look at Sleeping Beauty on Blu-ray. If there's one DAC to convince anyone of the potential for hand drawn art on that format it's that designed-for-70mm production.

If you have an HD computer monitor feel free to look at screencaps on DVDbeaver on the Blu-ray released DACs, that should give you a good idea of the difference.

Better yet, blu-ray.com has some great-looking caps.

Yeah, the point of blu-ray is to bring films closer to the filmmakers' intent. TV manufacturers will crap on that(the reason you have picture settings on your tv).

Plus, according to John Lasseter, it makes digitally-produced animation look closer to the images on the pcs used to make it.

Why did Milojthatch deem it necessary to repeat a largely erroneous post again in this thread. That's a little bit bizarre.

In technical terms there is no question about the superiority of Blu-Ray. It's a bit like comparing a PS1 to a PS2 - they are both good but one is technically better, no questions asked. The main point for the consumer is the extra capacity - most retail Blu-Rays are either 25 or 50GB but I believe that 100GB discs have been developed. This allows for HD content and more room for features (not that studios will necessarily use the space mind you).

This to me seems to be more of a HD vs. SD argument. To me you actually notice a bigger improvement in older films than you do in modern. Look at the Criterion and Masters of Cinema releases. In terms of Disney the difference in some titles such as Sleeping Beauty and Fantasia is astounding.

I will be a contrarian here and take neither side. I don't like using physical discs. They take up space and they make getting my media more complicated. Some say most people like having physical copies of their media because of a certain feeling it gives them they can't get by downloading digitally. I would call that materialism (not the worst kind, but still), and would say that tends to be peculiar to collectors. I have a blu-ray player connected to my TV because blu-rays are currently the only way to get 1080p video with uncompressed audio and I like to have that available because I have arguably the best looking TV on the market (Panasonic VT25 Series). But I also just ordered a Mac Mini from Amazon.com and will certainly be renting most of my movies through digital download. And considering HD downloads are not a huge step down from blu-ray quality, I may find myself amassing movie purchases on my hard drive.

Hmmm, 720p at best against 1080p on a large display. No competition.

Even if you're downloading, then you have to invest in a high speed Internet connection, and have lots of disc capacity. Now I know hard drives are getting more portable, larger and cheaper, but if we're talking about a large movie collection, say 200 movies upwards, then you're still talking about a huge expense for all of that storage space. And are downloads offering extra features? I don't think so.

And where are 3D downloads in all of this?

Whether you want 3D or not, another example of Blu Ray's superiority.

I'm curious as to how much Apple or Microsoft paid you to make that last post.

johns wrote:I will be a contrarian here and take neither side. I don't like using physical discs. They take up space and they make getting my media more complicated. Some say most people like having physical copies of their media because of a certain feeling it gives them they can't get by downloading digitally. I would call that materialism (not the worst kind, but still), and would say that tends to be peculiar to collectors. I have a blu-ray player connected to my TV because blu-rays are currently the only way to get 1080p video with uncompressed audio and I like to have that available because I have arguably the best looking TV on the market (Panasonic VT25 Series). But I also just ordered a Mac Mini from Amazon.com and will certainly be renting most of my movies through digital download. And considering HD downloads are not a huge step down from blu-ray quality, I may find myself amassing movie purchases on my hard drive.

they are still a noticeable step down.

Other than that, i'll only say im a bonus features junkie.

Still, i have no say as to what you choose.

BellesPrince wrote:But the point is that the main reason for buying them is not just the extra's, it's also the improved picture and sound quality.

And all the films do look absolutely stunning.

Yes, I realise that, and it is undeniably a main factor in re-buying them; with the Sleeping Beauty example, I was trying to emphasize the fact that films in HD do look stunning. However, extras have always been a factor for me personally in buying and re-buying things.

Note to IceFlash:

Since it is your money and your movie collection that we are talking about, we all need to remember that not everyone can just go out and 're-purchase' their whole collection.

As a true movie buff, I have over 6,000 titles in my collection, I have refused to go out and double-dip on any movie title, except for certain ones that I really feel that Blu-ray can do justice to.

As far as the animation and digital films go, look at the upconversion of a film compared to a Blu-ray and you will find that there is not a whole lot of difference in clarity of picture and backgrounds. When it comes to live-action films in the Disney catalogue, that sometimes depends on how the film was shot. While "The Absent-Minded Professor" looks very muddy in spots because it was full of 'blue-screen' effects, a film like "Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier" or "Davy Crockett & The River Pirates" looks amazing in the upconversion.

Now I do look for the Blu-rays of Disney films in used DVD stores, and if they are at a reasonable price I will pick them up. Since I preach that the cover doesn't have to be perfect because you don't play the cover, as long as the Blu-ray disc is in good shape, I am a happy camper. This is the way I have chosen to upgrade my collection, without a great expense of buying everying "new".

While my Blu-ray collection is growing 'leaps and bounds' I have been slowly replacing Disney films when I find them on the market at my favorite used DVD store www.cdtradepost.com and I make one or two purchases a month. Just recently I upgraded "Monsters, Inc" to Blu-ray because CD Tradepost had it for just $12.99.

Searching for older products takes a lot of patience, and I refuse to use eBay and pay those outrageous prices for Blu-ray, I will continue to watch my standard DVD's on my Blu-ray player as they look quite nice upconverted to near-HD quality.

Good luck Ice Flash with your decision on the move to Blu-ray. You should however be buying these new releases that come with the Blu-ray/DVD combined in one package that way you won't have to go on a search for them at a later date. Hope we have all helped you without too much confusion.

johns wrote:I will be a contrarian here and take neither side. I don't like using physical discs. They take up space and they make getting my media more complicated. Some say most people like having physical copies of their media because of a certain feeling it gives them they can't get by downloading digitally. I would call that materialism (not the worst kind, but still), and would say that tends to be peculiar to collectors. I have a blu-ray player connected to my TV because blu-rays are currently the only way to get 1080p video with uncompressed audio and I like to have that available because I have arguably the best looking TV on the market (Panasonic VT25 Series). But I also just ordered a Mac Mini from Amazon.com and will certainly be renting most of my movies through digital download. And considering HD downloads are not a huge step down from blu-ray quality, I may find myself amassing movie purchases on my hard drive.

I agree with you to an extent. I find that 1080p is the way forward so I buy Blu-Ray even though I believe that digital downloads are the next step, once fibre-optic broadband is installed. My stance is that I can always rip my Blu-Rays when the time comes.

dvdjunkie wrote:Note to IceFlash:
As far as the animation and digital films go, look at the upconversion of a film compared to a Blu-ray and you will find that there is not a whole lot of difference in clarity of picture and backgrounds.

That's absolute rubbish, and anyone who has compared Blu Ray and DVD versions of the same film know that is the case.

I don't know how anyone can seriously say that there isn't much difference between the upconverted DVD's of, for example, Sleeping Beauty or Beauty and the Beast and the Blu Ray versions. If you really think that, you seriously need to either recalibrate your equipment, or get your eyes tested, and it's wrong to be advising people that there isn't much difference.

It reminds me of Toshiba trying to claim that upconverted DVD was as good as Blu Ray when they lost the format war. There simply is no way it can be. The image detail is simply not there, a Blu Ray has 5x the resolution of a DVD, so no way can a DVD provide the same clarity of detail on any equipment, and the bigger the screen you view it on, the worse it's going to look.

You don't work for Toshiba do you?

BellesPrince wrote:

I don't know how anyone can seriously say that there isn't much difference between the upconverted DVD's of, for example, Sleeping Beauty or Beauty and the Beast and the Blu Ray versions. If you really think that, you seriously need to either recalibrate your equipment, or get your eyes tested, and it's wrong to be advising people that there isn't much difference.

I am sure that you read all of my post and not just that paragraph. I don't think that there is much difference in a digitally mastered standard DVD and a Blu-ray, but I am not going to advise someone to go out and buy every movie in Blu-ray when I don't know how financially stable they are. If they have "more money than brains" then I would say drop everything and go get only the Blu-ray.

I am not your typical movie collector. I don't pick apart movies because they might have some artifacts in them, or their color is not as bright as the Blu-ray might make it, but I am not going to foolishly go out and buy a double-dip just because it is now on Blu-ray. I will wait for it to come to the used DVD store and if the price is right, will probably pick it up.

I would never compare a Blu-ray like "Beauty and the Beast" to the standard DVD, but I still have the standard DVD because of the extras, and it all looks good to me, and that's all I care about.

If you came to my home and looked at my Home Theater you would probably be over critical because not everything matches. I have a different brand of everything, and my remote collection would drive a normal person crazy because I won't spend $200 to get one of those Harmony Universal Remotes that would probably do everything that all of my remotes do. I don't buy movies in certain formats to please you or anyone else. If I am pleased and knocked out by what I see, that is all that counts in my book.

Everyone has a different view of what is good, what is great, and what is just okay. That's what makes us all human, the ability to please ourselves and not have to worry about 'keeping up with the Joneses'.

As I said in my earlier post, I am not going to tell someone they have to go out and start replacing all of their movies with Blu-rays. That would be out of the question. I don't know what kind of budget they are on, I was just stating if a person is just starting in to the new technology of Blu-ray, then patience is what he or she needs in stepping up to the Blu-ray version of their favorite movie. I know what I can afford, and I don't know what you or anyone else can afford.

And as for that one person who says he prefers to 'download' all of his product to save space, is way out of my league. I want to have the product in my hand, and be able to look at it once in a while and also I am into extras which you can't get when you download films from internet sites, and the quality, from what I have seen is not near what you get when you have the actual Blu-ray on a Blu-ray Disc Player plugged into a HDTV.

The point is you made a comment which was outrageously incorrect. I don't care whether you personally are satisfied with a product or not. You categorically stated that there is little difference on an animated movie between an upscaled DVD and a Blu Ray and that is a complete untruth. If that's your opinion, you should make that clear, but you stated it as a matter of fact - not opinion.