Tale of Two Blu-Ray Remasters: Gladiator Fixed, Predator Ruined

[Woochifer]

I've long stated that Blu-ray is going to sink or swim based on how well it sells with new releases. Catalog titles on Blu-ray are not going to sell as well as they did with the DVD format for a variety of reasons. With this in mind, the studios have taken some differing approaches to their catalog releases.

Some studios (Universal and Paramount in particular) have gone the cheap route, primarily recycling older HD masters originally prepared for DVD releases. Since most of those transfers were done, the state of HD scanning technology has dramatically improved. While the older HD masters and a lot of the tricks deployed during the transfers such as noise reduction and edge enhancement might look fine on DVD, they don't hold up very well under the more revealing resolution of Blu-ray. Some of these Blu-ray releases trade off the inferior picture quality with lower prices.

Other studios (Warner and Disney in particular) have done some painstaking restoration work on their high profile Blu-ray releases. Releases such as Blade Runner, North by Northwest, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White are almost miraculous in how well they bring the organic look of film to home viewing. They properly preserved the film grain while bringing out the full color and detail. These releases cost more, but they are well justified.

Gladiator: Fixed

Which brings me to the Gladiator BD. When this release came out, it was highly anticipated, given how frequently the original DVD release was cited as a reference/demo disc. However, the BD release was roundly panned by reviewers and enthusiasts. Apparently, this was a case where the BD was sourced from the same transfer used in the original DVD release. Yes, that transfer was done in HD, but it pales in comparison with the current state of the art.

Now, it looks like a fix is on the way. A new 4k HD transfer was done for the Dutch Blu-ray release, and it looks like the newly remastered version is coming to North America. Best news is that Paramount has agreed to an exchange program, where anyone who bought Gladiator can obtain one of the remastered BDs.

The link below compares screenshots from the two Blu-ray versions (mouse over the picture for the new version). I'd only heard about how bad the original Gladiator BD looked, but I did not expect that it would look THIS bad by comparison.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/...257/picture:0#

Predator: Wrecked

Another recent double dip release was the Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition. It contains some new features, but it also has a new transfer that looks horrible. This was a case where the studio went way overboard on "cleaning up" the image. They took it to the point that everything looks like plastic. As Bill Hunt of the Digital Bits points out, the film grain is part of the intended look of the movie, and trying to make things look "perfect" ends up looking fake. You can see from the screen captures below just how heavy handed the noise reduction and edge enhancement was.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwoc...82.html#070610





The best Blu-ray releases find the right balance, and strive to preserve the original look of the film as much as possible. The high resolution and data rate of the Blu-ray format means that the film grain and micro details can be displayed without a slew of image artifacts (as is the case with DVD -- where greater application of noise reduction is necessary to prevent things like macroblocking from appearing). Blade Runner is a stunning example -- the image looks like high quality film projection -- film grain and micro details intact.

These two recent remasters show two divergent approaches, each of which are widely used. The lesson here is to keep a watch out for these things when catalog titles appear in Blu-ray. There's so much variation out there, which is a shame, given that Blu-ray represented a great opportunity to get things right once and for all.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This topic has been much discussed for the last several months in the insiders section of Blu ray.com's forums. This issue has also caused quite a bit of noise on the forums as well, with the moderators on the site having to lock some forums and clean them up of negative comments as well as personal pot shots taken at some insiders by insiders (insiders within the film community that participate on the web site). Very unfortunate.

Warner has released quite a few of their catalog titles, and the rest of the studios(including the one I work for) have not stepped up to the plate in releasing as many titles as they have. That is very unfortunate because the demand is there.

To restore a catalog title is a hugely expensive proposition. The Wizard of Oz costs Warner $6 million dollars to restore, and that does not include mastering, authoring, and replication. Snow White, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, and Beauty and the Beast(not as much) have cost Disney a pile of cash to restore(I think the figure was about $25 million for all four). So as you can see restoration is a very expensive undertaking, and if the title does not sell well, then that is a loss to the studio, and they become gun shy about releasing anymore.

This problem is two fold and exposes some growing pains for the Blu ray format. The first problem lies in the fact that not many young folks have not seen a high quality film presentation, as film is largely disappearing from theaters and being replaced by digital projection. This has been going on since the year 2000. So for most folks, the look of digital video is their only reference when it comes to movies(and games as well), and they expect their Blu rays to look just like that. I cannot tell you how many times I have told a young person that grain is a part of film, and film should never look like video. It is exhausting. When confronted with grain, most young folks reject the presentation as grainy even when it is well managed. The marketing folks at the studios love focus groups, and really take their opinions seriously. The problem with this is those focus groups are comprised of younger folks most of the time, and they want the images to be as grain free as possible as to look like video, and that is the marching orders given to the authoring and compression houses. It may satisfy the focus group, but it pisses off the videophile(or collector) to the point they won't purchase it. The reality right now is its the videophile that is keeping Blu ray sales up in this recession, and if you don't please them it is curtains on your investment. So trying to please one pisses off the other, so you end up with a winless situation. This is were the studios are right now - nobody wants to release their catalog titles because sales on them are in the toilet. Only Disney sells their catalog and vault titles in big numbers because of their unique(I know this pisses you off Wooch) way of handling those titles.

As a owner of the original Blu ray release of Gladiator - Universal should have been ashamed of themselves of the way they have treated that title knowing how big it is. Over DNR'd, over and unmonitored use of dust busting algorithms, and halo's around sharp edges just litter this entire release. I am under the impression that nobody QC this release at all. With the Comcast takeover pending, Universal is a mess right now. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, the left foot does not know what the right is doing, and it all ends up on their releases. The worst thing I saw on that disc when compared to the DVD was the disappearing arrows. This happens when dust busting algorithms are set aggressively and are unmonitored. The algorithms look at very small objects like dust and speckles(and sometimes little arrows) and erases them without touching the background. I have seen how this can happen, and no studio worth its salt should ever have this happen on ANY title.

Predator was a loss loss proposition for Fox. There was going to be no way to get any props for this release. The problem with this title lies squarely in the film stock used for shooting the film. Predator was shot on Kodak 5247 and 5294 depending on the ambient light on location. Much has been said that this film stock was chosen to give the movie a look of "grittiness" which is completely inaccurate. The DP chose the Eastman Kodak stocks he did for the simple fact of capturing “usable” images on film under relatively low lighting conditions in the jungle. 'Grit’ or ‘intentional’ graininess was never intended in any artistic sense for ‘atmosphere’. If anything, it was an undesirable side effect of the acquisition because it caused “murkiness” esp. in the greys and blacks of dark jungle sequences and didn’t allow the filmmakers the opportunity to cut the different stocks together in the same scene, which would have been nice to have had that flexibility. To give you an idea of the challenge, they were apparently restricted to shooting at a max. of only T2 in anything but high noon and the middle of the day. In night scenes they only had 7-8 footcandles of light to shoot under, and when you add smoke(fog) it dropped down to 4-5 footcandles. You see, once you add artificial light in the deep jungle, all it accomplishes is lighting the foreground to such an excessive degree that it looks obvious and fake to audiences. Once the film stocks are underexposed, one is only exposing the biggest of the grains, while the rest are unexposed and washed away during the photochemical processing in the optical workflow at the lab, thusly leaving only the bigger ones which are much more apparent to audiences. Hence the overt graininess of the first release.

In an effort to combat complaints on the first Predator release(too grainy), Fox turned on the DNR to high, and basically scrubbed every piece of grain out of the DI and quite a bit of high frequency information(detail) as well. So now you have a film release that looks like DV. I have to believe that somewhere in the middle would have been a better choice rather than this approach.

Lastly, the major problem in Hollywood IMO is the fact that film lovers used to be studio heads, and they appointed film lovers to key positions within the organization. They have been replaced over the years by bean counters and marketing folks that have no appreciation of film - its all about the beans to them. So now the bottom line has more priority than producing good quality products both technically and artistically. Another big issue is a major re-alignment of the entire industry away from film and towards digital cinema. This along with the recession and slowing DVD sales is causing a major wave in the industry, and I think there is a major disconnect between the consumer and the studio executives themselves. This is something that the old guard would not have ever let happen. The coming years are going to be very interesting, but I feel very glad I have only five years left in Hollywood.

[bobsticks]

Wow.

Great review and very thorough. Gladiator is a favorite in this household and it sounds as if the new BD should go on autobuy. I wonder if it will be "reference quality" a la Smokey's Top 10 dealio. I surely hope so.

Predator never really did enough for me to feel as though I needed to own it in multiple formats. Frankly, given the obvious constraints of the original source material, I'm glad.

Interesting info on some of the "behind the curtain" stuff that goes on. Thanks for taking the time gents.

[Worf101]

Guess I'm gonna have to PM both your guys before I plunk down anything on a BluRay. Yipes. Great information though and you've given me a load to think about.

Much love.

Worf

[Tarheel_]

I just recently joined the Blu Ray force with a Samsung C6500. Love the player and the upconversion is well above my Toshiba HD DVD player.

Now, i'm a big Predator fan and read much before shelling out the cash. I chose (based on reviews and such) to get the first BR release. Wife found it at walmart as a 2 disc bundle with The Terminator.

Well, for whatever reason I haven't watch Predator, but did watch Terminator last week and was simply blown away at the video/audio quality. I cannot believe this film was released in the early 80s. This is what BR should be all about. I'm no videophile, but was in awe at the picture. A must own!

[3LB]

I hope to, sooner than later, to own a good sized LCD or plasma TV and BR player. I never made the leap to 5.1 for my main system (the one I do own is being used for my kids' gaming). So, I'm kinda discouraged by what I'm reading. Sir T's statement that filmbuffs are keeping BD sales respectable even during a recession, is prolly true. I haven't seen any numbers, but its usually true about any new technology, as its usually the audiophiles and videophiles that make new tech viable and attractive to new investers which in turn increases production and eventually drives prices down on hardware and software.

It was in the late '90s that I remember DVD taking off and by '00, DVD accounted for about half of the rentals one would see at video stores. The DVD was a welcomed new format as most people were already wearing out their second or third copy VHS cassettes because the cheaper players stretched the hell out of the video tape. Good riddance to VHS.

Then maybe just a couple of years after nearly everyone I knew had changed over to DVD, we start hearing about hi-def TV and HD-DVD, (and DVD-A, and SACD etc, etc) and just a few years after that, we hear about BluRay... I know that to audiophiles and videophiles 10-12 years between video format changes is a lifetime, but it still seems like yesterday for a lot of average joes that DVD came out. People love convenience and they love 'easy', How is BD to take off if titles, old and new, are slow to hit the shelves?

As for quality, thats gonna mean different things to different people. One person's "stark realism" is another person's "cellophane sheen". I saw The Toothfairy on BD, and while some said it "looks 3-D", I found some scenes suffered from a sort of glaze. But of course my lack of enthusiasm was more to do with the fact I had sit through 10 or 15 minutes of a movie I wouldn't own if it came with a free TV. I'd rather watch a low-res movie I liked than a bad movie in the latest technology.

As of last week, the only video rental chain in our fairly sizable town, Hollywood Video, has gone 'TU', leaving only a handful of RedBoxes to rent from, as well as Netflix and On-Demand. My wife loves not having to go to a physical store and I love not getting a phone call from the video store about the stack of overdue DVDs under the den couch.

I'm not saying there's no hope for a BD player in my family's future, but its gonna take something spectacular, like a BD release of I Love Lucy, Elvis in 3-D or something like that. Luckily, I do not have a ton of DVDs to replace. My wife was mesmerized by Flushed Away on a plasma TV last weekend. I want to ditch cable TV this fall (two kids in highschool now) and just start buying titles, on BD, price and availability permitting, and an absence of garbage from cable might advance that cause. But yeah, a recession is a bad time to introduce a new video format to a culture already pressed for time and money.

[pixelthis]

I've long stated that Blu-ray is going to sink or swim based on how well it sells with new releases. Catalog titles on Blu-ray are not going to sell as well as they did with the DVD format for a variety of reasons. With this in mind, the studios have taken some differing approaches to their catalog releases.

Some studios (Universal and Paramount in particular) have gone the cheap route, primarily recycling older HD masters originally prepared for DVD releases. Since most of those transfers were done, the state of HD scanning technology has dramatically improved. While the older HD masters and a lot of the tricks deployed during the transfers such as noise reduction and edge enhancement might look fine on DVD, they don't hold up very well under the more revealing resolution of Blu-ray. Some of these Blu-ray releases trade off the inferior picture quality with lower prices.

Other studios (Warner and Disney in particular) have done some painstaking restoration work on their high profile Blu-ray releases. Releases such as Blade Runner, North by Northwest, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White are almost miraculous in how well they bring the organic look of film to home viewing. They properly preserved the film grain while bringing out the full color and detail. These releases cost more, but they are well justified.

Gladiator: Fixed

Which brings me to the Gladiator BD. When this release came out, it was highly anticipated, given how frequently the original DVD release was cited as a reference/demo disc. However, the BD release was roundly panned by reviewers and enthusiasts. Apparently, this was a case where the BD was sourced from the same transfer used in the original DVD release. Yes, that transfer was done in HD, but it pales in comparison with the current state of the art.

Now, it looks like a fix is on the way. A new 4k HD transfer was done for the Dutch Blu-ray release, and it looks like the newly remastered version is coming to North America. Best news is that Paramount has agreed to an exchange program, where anyone who bought Gladiator can obtain one of the remastered BDs.

The link below compares screenshots from the two Blu-ray versions (mouse over the picture for the new version). I'd only heard about how bad the original Gladiator BD looked, but I did not expect that it would look THIS bad by comparison.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/...257/picture:0#

Predator: Wrecked

Another recent double dip release was the Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition. It contains some new features, but it also has a new transfer that looks horrible. This was a case where the studio went way overboard on "cleaning up" the image. They took it to the point that everything looks like plastic. As Bill Hunt of the Digital Bits points out, the film grain is part of the intended look of the movie, and trying to make things look "perfect" ends up looking fake. You can see from the screen captures below just how heavy handed the noise reduction and edge enhancement was.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwoc...82.html#070610





The best Blu-ray releases find the right balance, and strive to preserve the original look of the film as much as possible. The high resolution and data rate of the Blu-ray format means that the film grain and micro details can be displayed without a slew of image artifacts (as is the case with DVD -- where greater application of noise reduction is necessary to prevent things like macroblocking from appearing). Blade Runner is a stunning example -- the image looks like high quality film projection -- film grain and micro details intact.

These two recent remasters show two divergent approaches, each of which are widely used. The lesson here is to keep a watch out for these things when catalog titles appear in Blu-ray. There's so much variation out there, which is a shame, given that Blu-ray represented a great opportunity to get things right once and for all.

But you have to give a gold star for trying, its not like they screwed up Predator for nothing,
they were trying to improve things.
The conversion to BLU is an excellent chance to fix movies and old TV shows.
THE SHINING on DVD was a huge disapointment, washed out, crappy sound.
Wasn't expecting much with the blu, but the picture and sound were a much needed improvement.
And I DISAGREE with your assessment of future BLU sales being mostly new titles.
Whos going to buy BLU discs, mostly? Thats right, collectors.
And collectors are going to be craving their beloved films and genre pictures.
A LOT OF THE NEW CRAP I CAN barely stand to watch one time, why buy a copy?
And most one time viewers will do so with PPV and the net.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But you have to give a gold star for trying, its not like they screwed up Predator for nothing,
they were trying to improve things.

Sometimes you can go too far in trying to improve things that you actually mess it up.

The conversion to BLU is an excellent chance to fix movies and old TV shows.
THE SHINING on DVD was a huge disapointment, washed out, crappy sound.
Wasn't expecting much with the blu, but the picture and sound were a much needed improvement.

Most of the time the studios do get it right. It is when they take a very popular legacy title and screw it up like Universal did to Sparticus.

And I DISAGREE with your assessment of future BLU sales being mostly new titles.
Whos going to buy BLU discs, mostly? Thats right, collectors.
And collectors are going to be craving their beloved films and genre pictures.
A LOT OF THE NEW CRAP I CAN barely stand to watch one time, why buy a copy?
And most one time viewers will do so with PPV and the net.

You can disagree all you like, but he is right. Sales of new titles are what is keeping Blu ray sales holding steady. Catalog titles sales right now are in the crapper with the exception of Disney catalog titles which always sell extremely well.

Some people want the disc, and PPV will not cut it because one cannot own it.

Videophiles and collectors(of which I am both) don't just buy catalog titles for the sake of it. It must offer an improvement over what has previously been released on DVD, or it gets a pass.

[3LB]

Isn't saying "graininess" is a part of the film experience like say tape hiss is a part of the music experience, ala Neil Young, "its where the ambience is"?

Not trying be contrarian actually. Where older material is concerned, I am of a mind that things that need fixin should get fixed, but I'd rather put up with a film's original artifact than a newly introduced digital artifact.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Guess I'm gonna have to PM both your guys before I plunk down anything on a BluRay. Yipes. Great information though and you've given me a load to think about.

Much love.

Worf

You don't really have to be THAT cautious about buying a title. 98% of the time the studio get's it right, especially with new titles. The problem comes when they have to restore a catalog title of significance popularity such as The Godfather seriers, Bladerunner(stunning audio and video), The Sound of Music and titles like that. If you are purchasing newly released titles, generally you have nothing to worry about.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Isn't saying "graininess" is a part of the film experience like say tape hiss is a part of the music experience, ala Neil Young, "its where the ambience is"?

Not trying be contrarian actually. Where older material is concerned, I am of a mind that things that need fixin should get fixed, but I'd rather put up with a film's original artifact than a newly introduced digital artifact.

Your comparison is not valid in this case 3LB. Grain=high frequency information=detail. You scrubb away the grain, you lose the high frequencies on the print and lose image detail - hence what happen to Predator. Film that lacks grain looks like video, and that is not the effect we are looking for on the Blu ray format.

Tape hiss represents the noise floor of the analog tape. You can take that same tape and speed it up, and the noise lessens. Hiss is noise which is not the same thing as grain(which is detail).


There are excellent grain management tools that can reduce the visibility of grain without losing detail, but you have to monitor the source while the process is performed. This is where I think some studios are failing. They would rather use a set and forget approach because it is a cheaper alternative. Unfortunately, you get what happened to Predator, and all of the associated complaints and lack of sales.

[3LB]

About how much of the buying public is represented by videophiles, collectors, and joes looking for something on sale (which I presume movies that aren't up to videophile standards, will eventually go 'on-sale')?

I've seen it written here that BD is the first format to do justice by the quality film used to shoot a lot movies, but how many movie house chains use high quality equipment and screens?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

About how much of the buying public is represented by videophiles, collectors, and joes looking for something on sale (which I presume movies that aren't up to videophile standards, will eventually go 'on-sale')?

This is information that is impossible to know with specifics. One can only guess there are far more joe's than collectors and videophiles, but collectors and videophiles buy far more titles than the joe's.

I've seen it written here that BD is the first format to do justice by the quality film used to shoot a lot movies, but how many movie house chains use high quality equipment and screens?

It depends on the area. Of course Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, San Francisco and any large city has quite a concentration of high quality theaters. Everywhere else is catch as catch can.

[PeruvianSkies]

They don't get things right 98% of the time, if they did, we wouldn't have reissue after reissue, majority of DVD's released during it's heyday were recycled from the 12" Laserdisc transfers to save the studios money from getting new transfers, which they would save for the second or third release of the title. I can think of dozens of DVD releases that were sub-par each and every time, despite claims of "fixing" things.

Blu-ray is already doing the same thing by using transfers from the DVD and despite being in 1080(i or p), they still are lackluster when it comes to what it could or should look when done correctly the first time.

The lack of DTS support from many studios on DVD was one of my biggest gripes and one of the reasons I began getting import discs from around the world of certain titles that were full-bit DTS releases outside of the U.S., such as:

BLADE
HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS (DVD still sounds better than the Blu-ray issue)
WINDTALKERS
NARROW MARGIN
FINDING NEMO
RONIN
GLORY
ALI
DONNIE DARKO
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI
BLACK HAWK DOWN

Just to name several.

Of course I love the marketing on Blu-ray "perfect sound, perfect picture".... too bad some people will actually buy that, and literally buy it and think that the quality is as good as it will ever get, like many thought with DVD, but now look back and realize all the problems with both the picture and the sound on so many titles.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

They don't get things right 98% of the time, if they did, we wouldn't have reissue after reissue, majority of DVD's released during it's heyday were recycled from the 12" Laserdisc transfers to save the studios money from getting new transfers, which they would save for the second or third release of the title. I can think of dozens of DVD releases that were sub-par each and every time, despite claims of "fixing" things.

PS, I don't need to read your recycled responses from two years ago - which quite frankly do not apply today, and really didn't apply then either. We are not talking DVD, we are talking Blu ray.

Blu-ray is already doing the same thing by using transfers from the DVD and despite being in 1080(i or p), they still are lackluster when it comes to what it could or should look when done correctly the first time.

Where is your proof of this? Or are you just being like your friend Pixel and guessing. I would take the latter since you do not work for any studio, compression or authoring house in Hollywood. The information I get from compressionist runs counter your statement.

The lack of DTS support from many studios on DVD was one of my biggest gripes and one of the reasons I began getting import discs from around the world of certain titles that were full-bit DTS releases outside of the U.S., such as:

BLADE
HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS (DVD still sounds better than the Blu-ray issue)
WINDTALKERS
NARROW MARGIN
FINDING NEMO
RONIN
GLORY
ALI
DONNIE DARKO
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI
BLACK HAWK DOWN

Just to name several.

Once again, we are not talking DVD or Dts, we are talking Blu ray. It helps if you stay relevant to the topic at hand, instead of using this thread to make your complaints about DVD. DVD is yesterday

Of course I love the marketing on Blu-ray "perfect sound, perfect picture".... too bad some people will actually buy that, and literally buy it and think that the quality is as good as it will ever get, like many thought with DVD, but now look back and realize all the problems with both the picture and the sound on so many titles.

Just how many Blu ray's do you actually own? I can tell you I own 900+ of them, and I find that less than 1-2% of that total that I own had problems with their transfer.

Robert Harris has stated online that the Blu ray format comes as close to the film answer print as video can get to film. That stands quite the opposite from your uninformed opinion. Personally, I would take RH's opinion over a person who has never seen the film print, never been in a compression or authoring house, and has absolutely no experience with anything even close to relating to film. My experience with you in the past leaves you with absolutely no credibility when discussing this issue.

[Tarheel_]

Since buying my blu ray player, i've seen 7-8 blu-ray movies....i would say 4 were the absolute best picture/audio i've ever seen (of that movie) in my HT. 2 were improvements in one form or another and the other 1 or 2 were disappointments...meaning the DVD version was equal or close enough. Granted i have a 720p projector, but i've seen these movies multiple times and know them well

LOTR (II & III) were not much, if any, improvement on video and some improvement on audio, while Terminator and Monsters, Inc. were huge improvements over my DVD versions.

Guess i'm saying each title is still hit or miss from my standpoint. I'm no videophile, but i want to be wowed from blu ray and that ain't happening on all discs.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Since buying my blu ray player, i've seen 7-8 blu-ray movies....i would say 4 were the absolute best picture/audio i've ever seen (of that movie) in my HT. 2 were improvements in one form or another and the other 1 or 2 were disappointments...meaning the DVD version was equal or close enough. Granted i have a 720p projector, but i've seen these movies multiple times and know the them well

My comment to this would be you would have to butterfly both the Blu ray and DVD using a split screen before you can say a Blu ray offered little improvement over the DVD. Our visual memories are not good enough to remember fine detail when too much time has passed between viewings. I own 900+ titles, and not one DVD could touch its Blu ray cousin in PQ when using this method. Also a properly calibrated set will reveal a lot more differences and improvements that Blu ray has over DVD.

LOTRs were not much, if any, improvement on video and some improvement on audio, while Terminator and Monsters, Inc were huge improvements over my DVD versions.

I got a complete opposite opinion in butterfly watching the LOTR Blu ray and the DVD. There was not a single area the DVD could come close to the Blu ray version of that movie. Granted, the first LOTR does not look as good as the other two, but it still looked far better than the DVD with its crushed blacks, and blurry fuzzy edges, and tons of edge enhancement.

Guess i'm saying each title is still hit or miss from my standpoint. I'm no videophile, but i want to be wowed from blu ray and that ain't happening on all discs.

I am not wowed by every Blu ray I own. I am however comforted in knowing that the Blu ray version is far closer to the printmaster than a DVD could hope to be.

[pixelthis]

You can disagree all you like, but he is right. Sales of new titles are what is keeping Blu ray sales holding steady. Catalog titles sales right now are in the crapper with the exception of Disney catalog titles which always sell extremely well.

Some people want the disc, and PPV will not cut it because one cannot own it.

Videophiles and collectors(of which I am both) don't just buy catalog titles for the sake of it. It must offer an improvement over what has previously been released on DVD, or it gets a pass.[/QUOTE]


NOT TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
Talking about what will come to pass. MOST just want to watch a movie once or twice.
Few are "collectors", and a lot of so called collectors have the DVD, and thats enough.
But real collectors will want the best, and usually vintage titles. I have already replaced several DVD's WITH THE BLU EDITION.
Like talking to you, watching a bad version of a movie is something you don't get back,
its time wasted.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

NOT TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

You cannot talk about tomorrow, it ain't here yet and your powers of future prediction are at best faulty.

Talking about what will come to pass.

You don't know what will come to pass, nobody does.

MOST just want to watch a movie once or twice.

You don't know what most do, you only know what YOU do.

Few are "collectors", and a lot of so called collectors have the DVD, and thats enough.

You obviously don't know the mind of a collector, you are not one. A collector would never be satisfied with DVD, that is why most collectors have moved on to Blu ray.

But real collectors will want the best, and usually vintage titles. I have already replaced several DVD's WITH THE BLU EDITION.
Like talking to you, watching a bad version of a movie is something you don't get back,
its time wasted.

Your participation here is a waste of time.

[pixelthis]

They don't get things right 98% of the time, if they did, we wouldn't have reissue after reissue, majority of DVD's released during it's heyday were recycled from the 12" Laserdisc transfers to save the studios money from getting new transfers, which they would save for the second or third release of the title. I can think of dozens of DVD releases that were sub-par each and every time, despite claims of "fixing" things.

Blu-ray is already doing the same thing by using transfers from the DVD and despite being in 1080(i or p), they still are lackluster when it comes to what it could or should look when done correctly the first time.

The lack of DTS support from many studios on DVD was one of my biggest gripes and one of the reasons I began getting import discs from around the world of certain titles that were full-bit DTS releases outside of the U.S., such as:

BLADE
HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS (DVD still sounds better than the Blu-ray issue)
WINDTALKERS
NARROW MARGIN
FINDING NEMO
RONIN
GLORY
ALI
DONNIE DARKO
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI
BLACK HAWK DOWN

Just to name several.

Of course I love the marketing on Blu-ray "perfect sound, perfect picture".... too bad some people will actually buy that, and literally buy it and think that the quality is as good as it will ever get, like many thought with DVD, but now look back and realize all the problems with both the picture and the sound on so many titles.

Perfect sound, perfect picture is what is possible. And if you like DTS you will love BLU,
DTS master is taking over as the soundtrack of choice.
I would buy some BLU discs for the sound alone, but have yet to see one that doesn't at
least equal DVD.
The worst BLU yet was total recall, a total waste of time, pic was as flat as the floor of a bowling alley. But you really don't have a choice but to replace at least the core of your collection with the BLU version, if you want to be considered a serious collector, IMHO

[E-Stat]

You don't really have to be THAT cautious about buying a title. 98% of the time the studio get's it right, especially with new titles.

While my modest BR collection is dwarfed by yours, I share the same level of success. While new releases likely dominate the sales volume, I was amazed at the quality of the old 60's Star Trek series rendered on BR along with some early Sean Connery Bond films. Other releases that benefited from the BR conversion are from the IMAX catalog such as Blue Planet and The Dream is Alive.

For me, it's not a question of which format I'll purchase - even if some aren't vastly improved.

rw

[pixelthis]

Since buying my blu ray player, i've seen 7-8 blu-ray movies....i would say 4 were the absolute best picture/audio i've ever seen (of that movie) in my HT. 2 were improvements in one form or another and the other 1 or 2 were disappointments...meaning the DVD version was equal or close enough. Granted i have a 720p projector, but i've seen these movies multiple times and know them well

LOTR (II & III) were not much, if any, improvement on video and some improvement on audio, while Terminator and Monsters, Inc. were huge improvements over my DVD versions.

Guess i'm saying each title is still hit or miss from my standpoint. I'm no videophile, but i want to be wowed from blu ray and that ain't happening on all discs.

question, what kind of sound setup do you have?
Sound has always been a big part of a movie for me, and when I finally got a HDMI receiver
it was a vast improvement.
I WATCHED several discs on 720p monitors when the formats first came out, and can understand where you wouldnt be much impressed with the output from your projector.

[Tarheel_]

question, what kind of sound setup do you have?
Sound has always been a big part of a movie for me, and when I finally got a HDMI receiver
it was a vast improvement.
I WATCHED several discs on 720p monitors when the formats first came out, and can understand where you wouldnt be much impressed with the output from your projector.

My audio from the blu-ray uses the analog outputs to my HK receiver which is output to an Anthem amp to Revel speakers. The HK allows me to apply custom settings so level/size/distance etc. is applied.
The audio is impressive to say the least. Only complaint is the slightly high treble which at very high levels give some discomfort. Very minor complaint though.

Projector isn't calibrated and has a lot of hours on the bulb so mileage may vary.