Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def

[dhmac]

Let me preface this by saying I firmly support Hi-Def and only have HDTVs and prefer Hi-Def releases over SD releases.

---

I was in a store the other day and saw 28 Days Later on Blu-ray. Owning that film on DVD already, I know it was filmed on digital cameras that were SD at best, so there is no extra resolution to be gained from putting it on a Hi-Def format like Blu-ray.

I also think this same thing about most non-CGI animated releases (excluding Pixar, for example). Ignoring bonus features, what's the point of getting them in Hi-Def when there's no extra definition to be gained for the film? For example, Superman: Doomsday is going to look almost exactly the same in SD as it does in HD, so why get it on Blu-ray instead of DVD?


Anyone else agree with me? And are there any other titles that really don't need Hi-Def?

.

[mhg83]

Clerks is fine in sd.

[PhantomStranger]

I was in a store the other day and saw 28 Days Later on Blu-ray. Owning that film on DVD already, I know it was filmed on digital cameras that were SD at best, so there is no extra resolution to be gained from putting it on a Hi-Def format like Blu-ray.

I also think this same thing about most non-CGI animated releases (excluding Pixar, for example). Ignoring bonus features, what's the point of getting them in Hi-Def when there's no extra definition to be gained for the film? For example, Superman: Doomsday is going to look almost exactly the same in SD as it does in HD, so why get it on Blu-ray instead of DVD?

The final scene of 28 Days Later was shot on film and benefits from Blu-ray. It also contains a lossless audio track that dvd could never match.

The BD of Superman: Doomsday obliterates the dvd version in picture quality. I should know as I own both and compared them extensively.

[PopcornTreeCt]

I don't see much of a benefit with 2D cartoons in High Definition. I can tell it looks better but it's all still meh to me.

[droidguy1119]

Yeah, as someone noted indirectly, this suggests that BD is entirely a visual medium, when it's equally aural. Even if a film isn't a visual wonder, lossless audio could be a perfect reason to upgrade.

[darkside]

This will probably not be true of any DVD. Blu-ray doesn't just have improvements in resolution. It also has improvement in color and sound quality. Pretty much anything is an improvement over the DVD. Even a 16mm film like Clerks will probably has some minor advantage.

That said will every film be worth double dipping for? The answer for me is definitely no. There were many titles I didn't double dip on until I could get the HD DVDs for $5 which was close to the value I got when reselling the DVDs. So even though there is an improvement I'm fine with having most of my collection on DVD.

[WMAangel]

Anyone else agree with me? And are there any other titles that really don't need Hi-Def?
.

Unless it was originally shot in standard definition video with lossy DD for audio, then no, I do not agree.....
Film has a higher resolution than what is considered HD video, therefore anything shot on film will look better in HD as long as it is well transferred and compressed....

[Mr. Salty]

I don't see much of a benefit with 2D cartoons in High Definition.
Having just watched one of the "Futurama" movies and "The Simpsons Movie" on Blu-ray, I couldn't disagree more. In addition to sharper and smoother edges, the colors popped in a way that the DVD versions don't.

I can tell it looks better but it's all still meh to me.
You're contradicting yourself. Way to go.

[Blu Man]

I don't see much of a benefit with 2D cartoons in High Definition. I can tell it looks better but it's all still meh to me.

I can tell. I popped in my DVD of The Simpsons movie and then my Blu Ray of Futurama: Bender's Game, and the difference was definetly their. The detail was much great in Bender's Games (Blu Ray) then The Simpsons Movie (DVD).

[Blu Man]

This will probably not be true of any DVD. Blu-ray doesn't just have improvements in resolution. It also has improvement in color and sound quality. Pretty much anything is an improvement over the DVD. Even a 16mm film like Clerks will probably has some minor advantage.

That said will every film be worth double dipping for? The answer for me is definitely no. There were many titles I didn't double dip on until I could get the HD DVDs for $5 which was close to the value I got when reselling the DVDs. So even though there is an improvement I'm fine with having most of my collection on DVD.

I've only double dipped twice. Transformer's and Batman Begins.

[Dean Kousoulas]

In cases where there isn't a huge jump, I usually wait till there is a sale before I upgrade. Regardless, the sound is usually a great improvement.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Having just watched one of the "Futurama" movies and "The Simpsons Movie" on Blu-ray, I couldn't disagree more. In addition to sharper and smoother edges, the colors popped in a way that the DVD versions don't.


You're contradicting yourself. Way to go.

When I said "I don't see much benefit" meaning The Simpsons Movie (Amazon price) on DVD - $13.99 and on Blu-ray - $24.99. The picture is better but not worth the $11.00. That's just me though.

[LickTheABCs]

In my 26 years on this Earth I've only learned a few things worth remembering, one of them being that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING benefits from High Definition.

From South Park to Lawrence of Arabia.

and if the PQ isn't enough the Audio is (much, much) better too.

[GizmoDVD]

In my 26 years on this Earth I've only learned a few things worth remembering, one of them being that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING benefits from High Definition.

and if the PQ isn't enough the Audio is (much, much) better too.

What about a a HD version of your parents doing in - would you watch it? :lol:

[DthRdrX]

When I said "I don't see much benefit" meaning The Simpsons Movie (Amazon price) on DVD - $13.99 and on Blu-ray - $24.99. The picture is better but not worth the $11.00. That's just me though.

The Simpsons is a terrible example though. I've been waiting for a price drop on it way to long. They'll probably have a rerelease out on shelves before this one hits under $19.99.

[Nick Martin]

I'd say that if you're one to notice compression artifacts (specifically that MPEG-2 "ringing" around the edges of on-screen text and some surfaces) then having that all disappear is a benefit.

"Firefly" may have SD effects shots but without those compression issues, they may look soft because of their resolution, but they look so much cleaner and all-around better on BD.

[PatrickMcCart]

BluRay can make everything from VHS sources to IMAX look better than on DVD.

For NTSC/PAL origin stuff like Monty Python's Flying Circus or All in the Family, there's the enhanced image quality that comes from better compression. Not upscaled to 1080p, but just using the better codecs is an improvement.

Anything shot in 35mm will always be enhanced. Don't forget that HD is basically 1/4th the average resolution of 35mm. Excuses about age are ridiculous. 2-D animation shot in 35mm has always been worked out for huge projection. Fantasia wasn't shot for TV screens (nor was it for the awful IMAX blowup).

BluRay is especially a great way to keep grainier films looking like film instead of noise-covered. DVD quality MPEG2 simply can't handle film grain as well unless it's ridiculously high in bitrate like Fantoma's Kenneth Anger DVDs (only 90 minutes of content, but literally maxed out onto DVD-9s because of the grainy 16mm sources).

Back to VHS... it's as simple as compression improvements that make it better than a regular DVD. Of course, it's still VHS...

[Raffurar]

I don't see much of a benefit with 2D cartoons in High Definition. I can tell it looks better but it's all still meh to me.

Wait until you see Pinocchio next month! You can see the brushstrokes on the backgrounds!!

[kefrank]

Back to VHS... it's as simple as compression improvements that make it better than a regular DVD. Of course, it's still VHS...
Not that it even matters, but I think you're wrong on the practical reality of this hypothetical. A VHS source just doesn't have enough information to compress to the point of having noticeable compression artifacts, even on DVD. The better compression available on Blu-ray would provide no perceivable benefit over DVD in this case.

[d2cheer]

Point Break doesn't really look any better either if you ask me.

[Mr. Cinema]

I compared the DVD and BD of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest last night and had a difficult time finding many improvements in the BD.

[LickTheABCs]

What about a a HD version of your parents doing in - would you watch it? :lol:



...still contemplating...

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Depends on screen size too.

If you're watching on a 42-inch plasma, you might not see a difference. Blown up on my 100 inch front projection system, I can see a huge difference.

[abintra]

B5Erik has created a master list thread (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk/549961-standard-dvds-blu-ray-player-hdtv.html) for DVD titles people report as holding up especially well/poorly compared to the BD release if anyone is interested in making additions (eg. the aforementioned One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Point Break).

[Nick Martin]

Depends on screen size too.

If you're watching on a 42-inch plasma, you might not see a difference. Blown up on my 100 inch front projection system, I can see a huge difference.


Don't slight us guys with 42" plasmas.

There is indeed a difference, and I'm not even running full 1080p.

My plasma is a 720p set and there is most certainly a step up in quality that is night and day compared to DVD.

[seymouru]

The Simpsons is a terrible example though. I've been waiting for a price drop on it way to long. They'll probably have a rerelease out on shelves before this one hits under $19.99.Check the Completed listings on eBay. New sealed copies are going for $10-$15.

[fujishig]

I would think something like Cloverfield falls into this, as the whole premise was that it was being recorded on a handheld, right? Stuff like that or Blair Witch Project.

Also, I'd think that some of the older digital and/or computer-animated cartoons would suffer. Things like Transformers Beast Wars or some digital-only anime.

I assume something like Chuck Season 1 is due to bad encoding?

[LickTheABCs]

^ Cloverfield looks terrific.

[JimRochester]

There are a few hi-def discs that didn't benefit from hi-def but it was strictly the quality of the release and not the source material. My Caddyshack HD and Total Recall BD were a total waste of money. The quality of the DVD was as good if not better. My Bullitt BD had a better picture but still just plain stereo sound. I shouldn't have bothered for a movie I won't watch much. My Titanic SE upscaled looks so stunning it rivals many of my hi-def discs. I probably won't upgrade that one for a long time when it is released.

Overall the vast majority of hi-def discs are superior to their SD counterparts. I haven't purchased a SD DVD since going hi-def in '07. I'll rent then wait for the BD. I don't spring for many when they are released so I have very few I paid the $25 for. Most I see from Blockbuster then wait for a sale or a used copy to show up if I feel it's a keeper. My most wanted I'll spring for when they are released but other than that my rental queue is fine.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Wait until you see Pinocchio next month! You can see the brushstrokes on the backgrounds!!

I have this one on pre-order.

[WMAangel]

I assume something like Chuck Season 1 is due to bad encoding?

Chuck Season 1 was shot on 16mm film, so it naturally has more grain than most everything else on Blu-ray that is from 35mm or better....
Also, I have the Blu-ray set, and have A/B'd it to the DVD, and the Blu-ray definitely looks better than the DVD version....

[Bleddyn Williams]

The final scene of 28 Days Later was shot on film and benefits from Blu-ray. It also contains a lossless audio track that dvd could never match.


I just watched this again for the umpteenth time, but my first viewing on blu. The jump in quality to the final scene is much more striking on the blu-ray.

My still-reigning champ for "Why did I bother?" actually is currently only on HD DVD. It is "Being John Malkovich." Jumping back and forth between the DVD and HD DVD on a 53" calibrated set, I could see no improvement whatsoever.