DVDizzy Forum

Rudy Matt wrote: I doubt you've watched a film in Blu-Ray outside of walking by a Blu-Ray display in some big box store.

DVD is really sharp too.

1.Yes, compared to Beta and VHS.

I think Blu Ray crosses the line, and went too far trying to be high def, which doesn't do the films any good.

2. I think you're threatened by the prospect that your giant Disney movie collection and movie collection in general is now demonstrably obsolete, degraded substantially in value, and is a relic of the late 20th century.

I've watched many films on Blu Ray and a High def, tv.

1. No. Not just compared to vhs. Dvd's are very sharp. Period.
But they do maintain the perfect balance between sharpnes and filmic atmosphere.

2. Nope, not threatened at all. The distant look, the way too exaggerated sharpness, that takes away from the whole film experience, will be noticed (and is noticed) by many people, so I don't worry about that.

Marky, do you know how illogical you sound. Do you even read back what you've typed, or is it some strange, random stream on conciousness ramble?

Do you not think in the decades since the motion picture camera was invented, great minds haven't solved the problem of how to film a film sequence in focus? I mean, even since before film was created, lenses were created that could magnify many times, enabling scientists to both look out into the heavens with untold clarity and likewise view microscopic organisms.

Do you really think the best they could do for motion picture cameras was a "unsharp blur"?

And the same is true for film stock. Evidence suggests that contrary to impressions from crappy copied or transferred TV/DVD viewings, original 1930's filmstock did in fact have high-fidelity. Check out this wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor

In 1931, an improvement of Technicolor Process 3 was developed which removed grain from the Technicolor film and resulted in a more vivid and vibrant color.[4] This process was first used on a Radio Picture entitled: The Runaround (1931). The new process not only improved the color but also removed specks (that looked like bugs) from the screen, which had previously blurred outlines and lowered visibility.

That's from freaking 1931! 1931! Indeed, it appears the transfer of such films to the so called "safety film" (which was less liable to spontaniously combust) that issues with grain became more apparent - no doubt because the transfer was done from a generational copy rather then the original negatives.

For more on Technicolor's tie-dye processing read this article here about the process when it was revived in the late 1990s.

http://www.mkpe.com/publications/d-cine ... icolor.php

I have never seen video pictures like this displayed on any type of display. The most costly studio monitor cannot show images like this. And Digital Cinema comes no where close. The lack of film grain is amazing in this dye transfer print. This film is obviously shot with a lot of high speed negative (probably pushed) and many practical lights (flaming torches) and there is little to no grain in the projected image.

Films on Blu-ray do have grain, if it is appropriate - look at Ghostbusters for example or The images in this post explaining what grain is. It would appear in the case of the tie-dyed films, grain (or at least excessive grain) is not appropriate no matter how you remember them from TV and VHS showings. The main reason grain exists is because later films were shot or distributed on cheaper film stock.

Why do you so stubbornly keep ignoring facts which can be supported with external references?

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about "unsharp" or "blurry".

I'm talking about the difference between "perfect sharpness" (dvd), and overly sharp (Blu Ray) which takes away from the film experience.

Have you ever visited an oculist and tried several "lenses" that were too strong? What you see then is the difference. There is a line that shouldn't be crossed, because it makes things unnatural.
It's also very tiring for the eye.

Yes, it's extremely sharp, but who came up with the idea of sharper is better? Because it can get a lot sharper.

I know people in real life look sharp too, but there is a big difference between a real life look and a filmed look. Making the film overly/unnaturally sharp does NOT mean more realistic. It will look less and less realistic and more artificial and distant.

Marky_198 wrote:

Deco King wrote:
I like to see the classic films that I love and revere in my own home in what I judge to be the finest and sharpest picture quality in other words on my TV using a Blu Ray source!!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but "sharpest" DEFINITELY isn't always "finest".

What is it with you Marky_198 or should that be Mr Ostrich (???!!!) if you want to see film go see a film and leave the rest of us to enjoy the movies we own in whatever form we enjoy and go stick your head back in the sand!!

Marky_198 wrote:Have you ever visited an oculist and tried several "lenses" that were too strong? What you see then is the difference. There is a line that shouldn't be crossed, because it makes things unnatural.
It's also very tiring for the eye.

Yes, I have, because I wear glasses. It happens every time you get new lenses, and preforming some actions can be somewhat tricky at first. But you know what? After a few minutes your eyes get used to the new image they see and it becomes natural.

Are you telling me when asked, you're rejecting lenses that make your eyesight sharper?

I really don't have a clue about what you are talking about. I suspect 95% of the people reading this won't either.

OK, let's kill this DVD vs. Blu-ray discussion with this:

People who want this on Blu-ray will buy it on Blu-ray.

People who want this on DVD will buy it on DVD.

We can't help what the colors look like, so shut up about something you can't change.

...snow white's skin is a shade different!?

Pinnochio on Blu Ray was perfect, and so will this be as well. Marky your on a one man crusade I'm not sure what you're trying to prove anymore? We all know that you know way more about tint and tone than the Disney Restoration Team working on the film, but are you going to do this for EVERY release?? Does it not get tiring?

2099net wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:Have you ever visited an oculist and tried several "lenses" that were too strong? What you see then is the difference. There is a line that shouldn't be crossed, because it makes things unnatural.
It's also very tiring for the eye.

Yes, I have, because I wear glasses. It happens every time you get new lenses, and preforming some actions can be somewhat tricky at first. But you know what? After a few minutes your eyes get used to the new image they see and it becomes natural.

Are you telling me when asked, you're rejecting lenses that make your eyesight sharper?

I really don't have a clue about what you are talking about. I suspect 95% of the people reading this won't either.

I had my eyes lasered and they are both as good as they can be now.

So I see the Blu Ray films for what they really are.
I guess the majority of people have bad eyesight, so it makes the Blu Ray films look more acceptable.

ah maybe that's it I actually have 20/20 vision so perhaps your the one who's not seeing the colors right.

The French covers:

Oh my. The French get 2 DVDs and a book!

Ooh la la!

2099net wrote:Oh my. The French get 2 DVDs and a book!

Makes me wish I lived in France I was hoping for that exact release in the US. Oh well. Good for them then.

The_Iceflash wrote:

2099net wrote:Oh my. The French get 2 DVDs and a book!

Makes me wish I lived in France I was hoping for that exact release in the US. Oh well. Good for them then.

I guess you could always import it ...?

Nick Bryant wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote: Makes me wish I lived in France I was hoping for that exact release in the US. Oh well. Good for them then.

I guess you could always import it ...?

I could but I don't know if I want to start buying imports...

If I lived there and had my entire Disney collection being the French release is one thing. I don't think I want my Disney collection be all US releases except for that...

The_Iceflash wrote:

Nick Bryant wrote: I guess you could always import it ...?

I could but I don't know if I want to start buying imports...

How come?

Nick Bryant wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:
I could but I don't know if I want to start buying imports...

How come?

It would be the only import I have in my collection and it wouldn't seem like it belongs with all my other Disney DVDs since it would be the odd one out. Plus (this is just a personal quirk) I wouldn't feel like I own Snow White. I'd have to buy a US copy that goes with my other Disney DVDs for me to feel like I have it. I know it's odd...

The_Iceflash wrote:

Nick Bryant wrote: How come?

It would be the only import I have in my collection and it wouldn't seem like it belongs with all my other Disney DVDs since it would be the odd one out. Plus (this is just a personal quirk) I wouldn't feel like I own Snow White. I'd have to buy a US copy that goes with my other Disney DVDs for me to feel like I have it. I know it's odd...

No, I don't think it's odd at all. I'm kinda like that.

That Import Dvd would NOT fit in my Blu Ray collection at all...at all.