Blu-ray movies

S

[email protected]

New member
Hi, could someone please help me out, 3 movies came today in the post on blu-ray these are called:

James Bond - casino royale (seen it but not in HD)
Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem
Sunshine

But i looked on the back of the covers and it displays region B, Does that mean it will work on my blu-ray dvd player, i can't test it for my self as my blu-ray player is not going to come until monday as i am renting it from martin dawes.

Note: the blu-ray dvd player comes from the uk.

Can someone please help me thank you. :)
 
I'll use this instead of a new topic, can anyone tell me the quality differences between a cinema screen and blu ray. Is watching the film on a cinema screen still the best quality compared to watching it on a top notch television/blu ray player? any help would be fantastic.
 
Cinema films are made on 35mm film and the quality goes way beyond our current HD standarRAB.

However as its blown up on a massive screen you cant really compare it to Bluray.

Bluray blown up to a cinema size screen would obviously look inferior -and dvd would be awful.

But as your home screen will be a fraction of the size of a cinema screen Bluray is more than adequate .

I'm sure there will be more and more posts this year with people saying older films on Bluray are a ripoff because they were " not made in HD".

The comment is complete rubbish and shows a lack of understanding.

Rest assured films from the 40's and 50's are capable of looking way better than Bluray when the better HD standard arrives - as it inevitably will - but Bluray is the best you will see a film at home at the moment - its not as good as film quality but the smaller screen makes it look as good

If you are looking to buy Bluray then its now possible to buy a multiregion player that is MR for both dvd and BD for under
 
Even 16mm is a higher resolution than the Blu Ray standarRAB. People who say old films were not filmed in HD are just silly and dont know what their talking about.
 
Film doesn't have resolution, as its analog. 16mm and 35mm film have the potential to put out crisp images, but a lot of it depenRAB on the quality of the equipment used in filming (ie. cameras, lighting, etc) and the standard of the film itself. Particularly with old film, if it hasn't been well looked after, it can be terrible. Quality in old material can also be ruined by poor post-production techniques. 80s TV shows, for example, often has their masters transferred to video tape for SFX work. Consequently, the masters are rubbish.

Of course, this still applies to modern movies. If the cameras are poor, then no amount of hi-res storage will help. However, it is far more common for modern movies to be filmed with equipment intended for 1080P and bove resolutions, due to moviemakers intentions for HD releases.

So modern movies are far more likely to look good in HD, because they were filmed with that intention. Older movies could vary significantly in quality if the masters were poorly produced or have deteriorated over time. Some will be gorgeous. Some will be terrible.
 
I would not say 16mm is better than Bluray - not standard 16 anyway.

A look at some thing like The Professionals or The Sweeney shows how ropey it can be and it was for this reason that the BBC decided initially that even super 16 was not good enough to create an HD master.

The Life On Mars Bluray is upscaled from super 16 and its not much better than the dvd upscaled.

Recent trials with a few super 16 programmes have resulted in some Bluray releases but I think its more to do with making money and trying not to waste 20+ years of super 16 product than really believing its good enough.

Too much upscaled material on Bluray this early will give HD a bad name- there are already some people unable to see the improvement with genuine HD
 
My understanding of it was that 16mm film is just slightly higher than current HD resoultion......so if the print is in good condition.Well taken care of etc, theres no reason why it cant be in HD.....its capable of it.

But studios work differently.Some will put the effort in, some wont.Look at the Dark Knight release.It looks and sounRAB amazing. But do you think thats the BEST they can do? Of course it isnt. They will re release it at some point and we will rush out and buy it again. Same thing happened with DVRAB.They give you a good print, then slightly improve it over time.

If people cant tell the difference between True HD and SD then something is seriously wrong. Its the general public we're talking about, how many are gonna know which cables to use and which settings to use? I was surprised by the amount of people who have had widescreen tellys for years and still had their sky boxes outputting at 4:3!!!
 
I think that the argument is a bit more complicated than 16mm, 35mm, 1080 etc etc as you are comparing two different signal standarRAB i.e. Analogue and digital.
Both signal standarRAB can equally have positives & negatives. Analogue is likely to degrade etc but with digital if the source signal is noisy (from poor quality equipment) in the first instance then it does not matter what resolution it is encoded in it will always look poor, also bear in mind the whole 1080I/ 1080P argument regarding frame rates etc
Another thing to remember is too take into account the display medium, there is a reason why some panels cost
 
Yes but at the resolution of 35mm film, is it not true for that resolution to be displayed in the home, that screen would have to be at least 100"s? I dont ever see the day that screens that size will EVER be considered the 'norm' for people. I currently have a 32" and am perfectly happy with it (even if i am planning on upgrading).
 
A lot of the above presupposes that the film stock used is always the SAME film stock and, of course, it isn't. The most common these days is what used to be called Eastmancolor, which is a relative of the Kodacolor negative film of happy holiday snap memories. Today it tenRAB to be credited just with the name of its manufacturer, Kodak. That is different from Technicolor, which - in turn - is different from Deluxe. To muddle the waters even further, directors often choose to shoot the movie one one type of film stock and print it on another. To muddy them even further, Super 35 cinematography uses only half the frame at the taking stage, so a modern 2.35:1 'CinemaScope' type film has poorer image quality than a genuine CinemaScope film of half a century ago - and that is even taking improvements in the technology into account. Technirama was even better. Just watch a pristine print of 'Zulu' or 'Spartacus' to see what I mean.

Digital photography is changing all that, of course and it may be that it restores the image to what it should always have been. In practice, assuming a quality HD flatscreen of up to 50" or so, a decent Bluray transfer should produce an image comparable to what you would see at the cinema (and possibly better than what you see on the biggest screens, which show up Super 35's limitations). That applies equally well to any film shot on decent film stock since the Second World War.
 
Just to clarify that the BBC nearly gave up the ghost on super 16 for HD and the Life On Mars Blurays clearly show that Super 16 is not up to the job of displaying HD in a quality much better than dvd.

Standard 16 is awful anyway - check out Jason King,The Sweeney,The Professionals or The Protectors.
 
Yes it is!


My opinion on blu-ray vs cinema is that blu ray is a far better picture quality. The only benefit of seeing films on the big screen is precisely that - the big screen. I remember going to see Saw 5 at the cinema last year, and my other half commented as the "Twisted Metal" logo came on the screen how crap it looked compared to on blu-ray. Kind of washed out and not at all crisp and sharp.

Dave
 
You are entitled to your opinion but of course Bluray is vastly inferior to 35mm film .

Dont forget that your home cinema setup will have been tweaked and adjusted to your personal preferences- but from a purely technical point of view 35mm wipes the floor with Bluray.

Blow up a Bluray image onto a cinema screen and see how good it looks
 
You are totally right. As a film studies student i've actually seen DVD's (upscaled) and Blu Ray's being projected onto a cinema screen (they can't always get us the film prints), and you can definitely tell the difference between them and 35mm. The picture is nowhere near as sharp, and in the case of DVD's there is serious "blocky-ness" issues, particularly around subtitles.

They showed us 'Ong Bak' on print and then followed it with a clip taken from the upscaled DVD of 'Warrior King' (my lecturer likes Tony Jaa) and the difference was striking.

People seem to complain about being able to see the artifacts and 'cigar burns' when the reel changes in cinemas, but in my opinion it adRAB to the charm of actually watching a film. Give me a film on print over a digital screening any day.
 
Your Film Studies sounRAB a lot better compared to when I did Film Studies, we didn't have a big cinema screen to watch films on :( You are luckyyyyyyyy. :)



I didn't seem to notice any problems with stuff been too dark in the movie when I watched it on dvd?
 
Back
Top