Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > DVD and Blu-ray Discussion

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-02-2009, 21:19   #41
Guest 68244
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post
Until you've seen it aceofwands, perhaps it might be, might be a tad hasty on your part to pass judgement over it...

But what your effectively saying is it's not worth squeezing the best quality available for an HD release. Which is frankly barmy.
I didnt mean the set was expensive to buy - I was repeating the comment from Steve Roberts who works for the BBC who claimed the rescan process worked out prohibitively expensive and they are unlikely to do it again for the moment
Guest 68244 is offline  
Old 02-02-2009, 21:21   #42
Guest 68244
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandmaster View Post
There are palpable advantages to using SD sources upscaled to 1080p. Firstly, all DVDs - even the very best - are subject to compression artefacts. These will be all but completely eliminated on an upscaled BD.

Secondly, assuming the masters have a superior colour depth to the DVD (almost certain), an upscaled 1080p BD version directly transferred from the master will have significantly higher chroma resolution.

What this means is that Life on Mars, and presumably Ashes to Ashes, won't be anywhere near as good as any decently handled HD transfer, but... if the choice is between owning the DVD and owning the BD, you'd really want to own the BD... assuming of course, that the differences in price aren't stupidly high.

My only worry would be what I think happened to Robin Hood S1 - they resampled it down from 25fps to 24fps resulting in a horrible blur.



You'd be able to tell the difference between a 16mm and 35mm transfer, but 16mm film can definitely yield full HD resolution (1920x1080) so yes, a Blu-ray based on 16mm film is definitely desirable. You're talking about the difference between a brilliant transfer and a good one, basically.
Life ON Mars has been altered to 24fps too
Guest 68244 is offline  
Old 16-02-2009, 03:03   #43
Guest 58745
...
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 377
Thanks: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Robin Hood motion blur is due to converting 50i to 60i for the the worldwide HD releases. LoM was properly slowed down to 24fps. It's a slow down, not a resample.
Guest 58745 is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 09:30   #44
mk.ten
The Truth Is Out Where???
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SE London
Posts: 942
Thanks: 0
Thanked 18 Times in 9 Posts
I guess this has been put back then..................
mk.ten is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 10:13   #45
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceofwands View Post

While the smartarses with spec sheets may say super 16 is POSSIBLE for an HD master the BBC appear to disagree and it remains to be seen whether it shows up on the screen and if the quality does not look as good as a 35mm print then its not a good ad for Bluray either

Even Scrounger agreed it would not result in FULL HD - so its largely pointless exercise

And of course once the current HD standard is improved upon all 16mm wont even come close
I wouldn't say it was a pointless exercise looking at this:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ce_blu-ray.htm
thescrounger is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 11:30   #46
scoobyood
Tony Danza
 
scoobyood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Zagreb
Posts: 8,670
Thanks: 802
Thanked 1,050 Times in 522 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post
I wouldn't say it was a pointless exercise looking at this:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ce_blu-ray.htm
Cool. That actually makes me want to rent pride and prejudice for that restoration feature
scoobyood is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 13:50   #47
Guest 10592
Come along, Pond.
 
Guest 10592's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Doombase
Posts: 9,592
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Rose View Post
Robin Hood motion blur is due to converting 50i to 60i for the the worldwide HD releases. LoM was properly slowed down to 24fps. It's a slow down, not a resample.
So has the audio been remixed to account for the slowed down music?
Guest 10592 is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:10   #48
Guest 68244
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post
I wouldn't say it was a pointless exercise looking at this:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ce_blu-ray.htm
This is from from the site run by the guy who marvels at the quality on Bluray for films made in the 80's

Regardless of what the Beaver says the BBC will NOT screen any 16mm material on BBC HD.

The BBC also admitted that the cost of obtaining the quality on P&P was far too much for them to bother doing it again from the negatives - for the moment at least.

I daresay the quality is better than the dvd - but my point is that its not full hd or as good as Bluray offers.

Its worth buying if you dont have the dvd

The most telling line in the review is :"The image quality is not much compared to well transferred material from 35mm sources in good condition."

Which is what I've been saying all along.

The cost of returning to negatives for a full restoration is high for what is basically a sub standard Bluray disc
and the BBC decided that although results are better than dvd they are not enough to justify it

Last edited by aceofwands; 20-06-2009 at 20:17.
Guest 68244 is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:17   #49
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceofwands View Post

I daresay the quality is better than the dvd - but my point is that its not full hd or as good as Bluray offers.

You did look at the screengrab comparisons?
thescrounger is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:25   #50
Guest 68244
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post
You did look at the screengrab comparisons?
Uploaded screengrabs are rarely worth looking at as any indication of genuine quality

The line I quoted from the review agrees with and sums up my opinion completely so there is no argument anyway

I am not saying the Bluray is not an improvement over dvd - I am saying the results from 16mm are inferior compared to regular Bluray and the review agrees.

And the BBC agree that the results do not justify the costs

If I was a mad P&P fan I'm sure I would buy it as I would for any improvement of a show I liked.

Last edited by aceofwands; 20-06-2009 at 20:27.
Guest 68244 is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:26   #51
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts


Quote:

I am not saying the Bluray is not an improvement over dvd - I am saying the results from 16mm are inferior compared to regular Bluray and the review agrees.
Super 16 actually.

So?

What you get is a perfect recreation of super 16 quality, which looks wonderful.

Why are you arguing against this?

Last edited by thescrounger; 20-06-2009 at 20:30.
thescrounger is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:30   #52
Guest 68244
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post




So?

What you get is a perfect recreation of super 16 quality, which looks wonderful.

Why are you arguing against this?


The review you posted to counter my argument actually agrees with me.

What is there to argue about?
Guest 68244 is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:32   #53
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceofwands View Post
The review you posted to counter my argument actually agrees with me.

What is there to argue about?
What's your point?

"- so its largely pointless exercise"

No, the screengrabs and restoration disagree with you completely.

Last edited by thescrounger; 20-06-2009 at 20:33.
thescrounger is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:39   #54
Guest 68244
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post
What's your point?
What do you mean whats my point?

You posted the review , not me.

My point is that 16mm (standard or super) is not good enough quality to put onto Bluray.

Firstly the results fall short of regular Blurays sourced from 35mm so as demo discs they offer Joe Public good ammunition that HD is a con - which is what many say.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one I have on Bluray and it too is not Bluray quality.

Sure , its better than dvd a bit but its certainly not good enough to warrant buying the Blu if you already have the dvd unless its one of your very fave movies.

Life On Mars is not quite the same as only the standard def masters were upscaled but I sold my LOM dvd's to get the BD and apart from saving space , the upgrade was a waste of time.

The review you posted actually agrees with me completely.

What is personal opinion is whether the extra quality obtained is worth shelling out for and I suppose someone who loves P&P will want the best quality available.

However - as I've already said many times - returning to the negatives for a full rescan is an expensive process and the BBC have decided for the moment that the extra quality obtained is not good enough to allow for a BBC HD broadcast nor for the process to be used again .

I daresay the A2A Blurays will be the standard def masters upscaled again so results only marginally better than the dvd's.
Guest 68244 is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:41   #55
Guest 68244
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post
What's your point?

"- so its largely pointless exercise"

No, the screengrabs and restoration disagree with you completely.
But the reviewer himself aswell as the BBC do not

Basing quality perceptions on website screengrabs is a joke

Last edited by aceofwands; 20-06-2009 at 20:41.
Guest 68244 is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:44   #56
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceofwands View Post
What do you mean whats my point?

You posted the review , not me.

My point is that 16mm (standard or super) is not good enough quality to put onto Bluray.
That's a ridiculous opinion to hold, just because the film quality is not of highest resolution possible.

Do you want things to look the best they can or don't you?

Hence my question, what are you actually arguing against?

If you don't personally think it's worth the difference over the DVD then don't buy the Blu-ray, but to argue against making something look as good as it can because it's your preference to not want to buy it again is lunacy.
thescrounger is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:49   #57
Guest 68244
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post
That's a ridiculous opinion to hold, just because the film quality is not of highest resolution possible.

Do you want things to look the best they can or don't you?

Hence my question, what are you actually arguing against?

If you don't personally think it's worth the difference over the DVD then don't buy the Blu-ray, but to argue against making something look as good as it can because it's your preference to not want to buy it again is lunacy.
Disagree with me - fine.

Disgree with the BBC - fine.

You can even disagree with the actual reviewer who completely agrees with me 100% and he is basing his views on the same screengrabs you seem to love.

I have nothing against making something look as good as possible.

But the LOM and TCM Blurays show the improvement is marginal.

Certainly not worth paying twice.

But get over it.

Super 16mm material is not good enough for Bluray.

Thats what I say , thats what the reviewer says and its what the BBC say - so make the most of P&P because the BBC wont be rescanning anymore super 16 shows for the time being.

So not buying Blurays of such material is not an option because there wont be any

A2A is not a BBC title

Last edited by aceofwands; 20-06-2009 at 20:51.
Guest 68244 is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:50   #58
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Who is this guy?

This must be a wind up , so I'll bid you farewell for now.
thescrounger is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:54   #59
Guest 68244
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescrounger View Post
Who is this guy?

This must be a wind up , so I'll bid you farewell for now.
Just admit it.

You posted a review to counter my argument and then realised too late that the reviewer actually 100% agrees with my view .

So yes - you better be off and not make yourself look anymore daft than you already have

I cant even see what you disagree with anyway

Last edited by aceofwands; 20-06-2009 at 20:56.
Guest 68244 is offline  
Old 20-06-2009, 20:55   #60
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Specsavers matey. Make an appointment, PRONTO.
thescrounger is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
Blu-ray Disc

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ashes to Ashes Series 1 DVD Box Ł9.89 @ Sendit Guest 2006 Bargain Forum 2 12-04-2009 09:47
Life on Mars 2 - Ashes to Ashes **Spoilers** Guest 49515 Television Discussion 369 02-04-2008 08:42
Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes Guest 33467 Television Discussion 20 25-03-2008 12:56
Is Ashes to Ashes repeated? Guest 17713 Television Discussion 2 06-03-2008 22:42

All times are GMT. The time now is 00:14.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018 Poisonous Monkey Ltd. Part of The Digital Fix Network