28 Days Later - Poor video quality?
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Harbor City, CA USA
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox should be ashamed about releasing this.
I watched this and 28 Weeks Later last night and kept on telling my brother:
"This is on a BD50!!"
"This is an HD format!!!"
I watched this and 28 Weeks Later last night and kept on telling my brother:
"This is on a BD50!!"
"This is an HD format!!!"
#27
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
The Blu-ray transfer is faithful to the way the movie is supposed to look. The real question is why Fox would issue a movie like this on Blu-ray in the first place.
Is BR an elitist format of some sort?
All things considered I can not think of a reason why they would not want to release the sequel on BR given the enormous success the original generated. And if the true look does not dazzle those who believe that glimmer and shimmer are the only selling points here...then too bad.
All of cinema does not come in unified resolutions, colors, and aspect ratios. And the majority of us are hoping that BR will cover all of it.
Pro-B
#28
DVD Talk Legend
No issue with them releasing it. They even put a lot of extras on the disc. I picked up this one and the sequel cheap, however, I didn't own it on DVD yet. If you do there is no reason to upgrade, but the BD version makes sense since they wanted tie in with the sequel.
#29
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
Why wouldn't they?
Is BR an elitist format of some sort?
All things considered I can not think of a reason why they would not want to release the sequel on BR given the enormous success the original generated. And if the true look does not dazzle those who believe that glimmer and shimmer are the only selling points here...then too bad.
Is BR an elitist format of some sort?
All things considered I can not think of a reason why they would not want to release the sequel on BR given the enormous success the original generated. And if the true look does not dazzle those who believe that glimmer and shimmer are the only selling points here...then too bad.
28 Days Later was shot on Standard Definition video, using a mode on the consumer camcorder that barely gets 250 lines of resolution. It doesn't even live up to the potential of regular DVD. There is no benefit or point in releasing an upscaled version of the movie on Blu-ray, other than to bilk ignorant consumers out of $39.98.
#30
Banned by request
They released it to tie into the first one, of course. Do you think Fox cares that it can't visually take advantage of the format?
Although this does lead to an interesting question: Should we never see titles released that can't take full advantage of the format? After all, if we don't want it, we don't have to buy it. 28 Days Later is actually one of Fox's better releases for extras.
Although this does lead to an interesting question: Should we never see titles released that can't take full advantage of the format? After all, if we don't want it, we don't have to buy it. 28 Days Later is actually one of Fox's better releases for extras.
#31
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
Why wouldn't they?
Is BR an elitist format of some sort?
All things considered I can not think of a reason why they would not want to release the sequel on BR given the enormous success the original generated. And if the true look does not dazzle those who believe that glimmer and shimmer are the only selling points here...then too bad.
All of cinema does not come in unified resolutions, colors, and aspect ratios. And the majority of us are hoping that BR will cover all of it.
Pro-B
Is BR an elitist format of some sort?
All things considered I can not think of a reason why they would not want to release the sequel on BR given the enormous success the original generated. And if the true look does not dazzle those who believe that glimmer and shimmer are the only selling points here...then too bad.
All of cinema does not come in unified resolutions, colors, and aspect ratios. And the majority of us are hoping that BR will cover all of it.
Pro-B
#32
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
They released it to tie into the first one, of course. Do you think Fox cares that it can't visually take advantage of the format?
Although this does lead to an interesting question: Should we never see titles released that can't take full advantage of the format? After all, if we don't want it, we don't have to buy it. 28 Days Later is actually one of Fox's better releases for extras.
Although this does lead to an interesting question: Should we never see titles released that can't take full advantage of the format? After all, if we don't want it, we don't have to buy it. 28 Days Later is actually one of Fox's better releases for extras.
There are a lot of films like Clerks or the Christopher Guest mocumentaries that were shot on 16mm and blown up to 35mm. I can't imagine those being much more than marginal upgrades on BD so you have to wonder if they will ever see a release on the format. Personally if I don't already have it on DVD I would probably prefer to get it on BD, but that depends on how much higher the cost is. With 28 Days it makes little sense to buy the BD if you have to pay $28 because the DVD is so cheap.
#33
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
We're talking about 28 Days Later, not 28 Weeks Later.
28 Days Later was shot on Standard Definition video, using a mode on the consumer camcorder that barely gets 250 lines of resolution. It doesn't even live up to the potential of regular DVD. There is no benefit or point in releasing an upscaled version of the movie on Blu-ray, other than to bilk ignorant consumers out of $39.98.
28 Days Later was shot on Standard Definition video, using a mode on the consumer camcorder that barely gets 250 lines of resolution. It doesn't even live up to the potential of regular DVD. There is no benefit or point in releasing an upscaled version of the movie on Blu-ray, other than to bilk ignorant consumers out of $39.98.
This being said my observation remains in tact. I've argued for many months here and elsewhere that we need only one format (and one mass market) to succeed SDVD and any weeding out of cinema that isn't eligible for BR clearly disappoints me. It is the format that will have to adjust to cinema and what becomes available to the consumer (optimized audio, video) not the other way around (last time anything similar happened P/S VHS became the norm).
Furthermore, even though I understand that in its plight to become mass BR will initially bet on plenty of flashy Hollywood productions to test it's muscles I still believe that there is enough room for less than spectacular titles to come out.
Any elitist behavior towards BR will significantly hurt its chances to replace SDVD. And since everything should be done in the best interest of cinema (technological advancements, formats, etc) the answer is yes, the title deserved to be put on BR. If one person bought it with the less than successful sequel, and the sequel convinced him/her that HD is the future...voila, mission accomplished.
Ciao,
Pro-B
Last edited by pro-bassoonist; 01-21-08 at 10:10 PM.
#34
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
Although this does lead to an interesting question: Should we never see titles released that can't take full advantage of the format?
With all due respect I could not care less about Transformers on BR with loseless tracks and seven discs of extras, etc. Or Pirates..., Dark Knights..., etc. BRs. They simply aren't going to find a spot in my collection. I perfectly understand that this is what the majority of enthusiasts are going after but, and I am being totally honest, these films could not mean any less to me. No matter how perfect they would look in HD.
Pro-B
#35
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
I've argued for many months here and elsewhere that we need only one format (and one mass market) to succeed SDVD and any weeding out of cinema that isn't eligible for BR clearly disappoints me. It is the format that will have to adjust to cinema and what becomes available to the consumer (optimized audio, video) not the other way around.
Any elitist behavior towards BR will significantly hurt its chances to replace SDVD. And since everything should be done in the best interest of cinema (technological advancements, formats, etc) the answer is yes, the title deserved to be put on BR.
The "HD" transfer of the disc was a lie, at least for the majority of the film. It'd be like a home video release of a film shot on 35mm boasting a transfer made from a 70mm print: the supposed "increase" in quality is non-existent because of the original source, as opposed to a film that had actually been shot in 70mm.
Let's say a show shot in SD like All in the Family was to be released on BD. It certainly could use the improved storage and codecs of BD to provide better compression, improved or completely lossless audio, more shows per disc, etc. Now, what if instead of releasing it on BD in it's original resolution, the studio upscaled the video transfer and touted the disc as HD? Wouldn't you think promoting a show originally shot in SD as now being HD just a tad disingenuous? And wouldn't the (relatively) lower quality of that release, one that might not be markedly better than the SDVD release, actually work against HD adoption, since those releases would be muddying the waters and lowering people's opinions of what HD actually can do?
If one person bought it with the less than successful sequel, and the sequel convinced him/her that HD is the future...voila, mission accomplished.
#36
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jay G.
The format can adjust to the movie in question: the BD could've very easily stored the movie in its native format, instead of in an upscaled form. The upscaling could've easily been provided by the BD player.
Originally Posted by Jay G.
I think a distinction should be made between between the BD disc format and the resolution presented on that format. The point isn't that 28 Days Later doesn't "deserve" to be put on BD, it's that the upscaled resolution stored on the disc provided at best a marginal improvement over the DVD, an improvement that could have as much to do with the improved compression codec as the increased resolution.
This being said, plenty on this very forum see loseless audio as only a marginal improvement over other advanced audio codecs. And this is precisely why I concluded that any talk about deserving puts this entire discussion in a totally different light. Question: remember when The Blair Witch Project was released on VHS and DVD?
Originally Posted by Jay G.
The "HD" transfer of the disc was a lie, at least for the majority of the film. It'd be like a home video release of a film shot on 35mm boasting a transfer made from a 70mm print: the supposed "increase" in quality is non-existent because of the original source, as opposed to a film that had actually been shot in 70mm.
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Let's say a show shot in SD like All in the Family was to be released on BD. It certainly could use the improved storage and codecs of BD to provide better compression, improved or completely lossless audio, more shows per disc, etc. Now, what if instead of releasing it on BD in it's original resolution, the studio upscaled the video transfer and touted the disc as HD? Wouldn't you think promoting a show originally shot in SD as now being HD just a tad disingenuous? And wouldn't the (relatively) lower quality of that release, one that might not be markedly better than the SDVD release, actually work against HD adoption, since those releases would be muddying the waters and lowering people's opinions of what HD actually can do?
Originally Posted by Jay G.
For every one person who bought both it and it's sequel and was convinced for HD, there could just as easily be one person who saw it and thought "HD looks no better than DVD," and got turned off the format for good.
Pro-B
#37
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
Yet, the current presentation hasn't caused any significant issues either.
At least I assume that those that would look for it on BR more than likely were aware of its native formatting.
This being said, plenty on this very forum see loseless audio as only a marginal improvement over other advanced audio codecs.
And this is precisely why I concluded that any talk about deserving puts this entire discussion in a totally different light. Question: remember when The Blair Witch Project was released on VHS and DVD?
There are plenty of distribs, at this very moment, releasing lies on DVD. I don't see many people questioning their existence...aside from us, the enthusiasts.
Allow me to answer your question in the following manner: No, as I would have fully understood that the original source has limitations.
Much like for example I have currently accepted that Facet's sub par VHS transfers of Zulawski's work are a substantial improvement over the PolArt VHS duffs.
Same scenario occurred in the early years of SDVD thus many chose to continue favoring Pan-Scan even after they made the switch to SDVD.
#38
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
Although this does lead to an interesting question: Should we never see titles released that can't take full advantage of the format?
Will next we be seeing a Blu-ray release of Derek Jarman's Blue, a movie comprised of nothing more than voiceover narration playing over a blank blue screen for 79 minutes? How could anyone justify that?
#39
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,821
Received 1,881 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
It's one thing to release a movie that doesn't take full advantage of the format. It's another to release a movie that doesn't take any advantage of the format. What is the point, when there's already a perfectly good DVD edition available?
It's not a case of "only pretty movies should be released in high-def" the way some people are making it out to be.
#40
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
I think you could make a valid case for making a title available on whatever the dominant format is at the time, even if there's little to no technical advantage, but for a fairly early Blu-ray release when virtually every title in Fox's library would stand to benefit so much more, it definitely is a bizarre choice.
I don't know if "bizarre" would be the right term. After all it IS a perfect opportunity for Fox to gouge people for more money, and, historically, they're pretty consistent in that regard. If we were talking about them releasing titles only for the sole purpose of showing off the format, then you'd have to wonder why they would choose this film. It has nothing to do with integrity or artistic merit; it's simply about making more money.
#41
Cool New Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would've been best is if FOX had provided some sort of technical specifications on the packaging (similar to Criterion's liner notes), or better yet a technical disclaimer at the beginning of the film in explaining the picture quality.
I do agree that the $39.98 price tag was unreasonable. If we are to see more SD content on the next-gen format it should be priced down accordingly.
I do agree that the $39.98 price tag was unreasonable. If we are to see more SD content on the next-gen format it should be priced down accordingly.
#42
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jay G.
That's a pretty big assumption. The OP of this thread had forgotten about the movie's native formatting, and at least one other poster was unaware of it as well. The majority of people in the mass market are typically unaware of how a particular movie was shot.
As to Fox justifying their release, all they need to cite is: possible BR owners only interest in it, and an opportunity to release the original with the sequel together. Whether or not the film would have looked just fine on SDVD only is a non-issue given the above group of prospective customers I mentioned.
Originally Posted by Jay G.
So?
More than likely if I am to use the logic you applied to 28 Days Later I will be questioning some releases in the future. With other words the possible marginal improvement you mentioned in your earlier post might have been enough of a reason for people to get this disc if they already moved to BR software only.
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Are you trying to suggest that people thought that The Blair Witch Project didn't deserve to be released on VHS and DVD?
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Isn't that the point though? As enthusiasts, we question sub-par releases. I don't see why BD releases should be excluded from our criticism.
Originally Posted by Jay G.
So you agree that it's a lie, but since you personally know it's a lie, you don't see it as disingenuous? What about the other 99.9% of the population that doesn't know how everything they watch was shot, and expect an HD transfer to actually be higher definition?
As to the 99% of the population and what they may or may not expect...it is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. Just as Dave Mack's expectations were a non-issue once it was explicitly made obvious that his expectations were not in sync with Coppola's vision.
In this specific case the BR is just a carrier where Boyle's film isn't inferior looking to the SDVD version of it.
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Would you find a BD that promotes an HD version of his work that's simply an upconversion of the exact same VHS transfer to be as acceptable?
Originally Posted by Jay G.
That doesn't sound like the same scenerio at all, since in that one they did chose the new format over the other, while in my scenerio they didn't.
Pro-B
Last edited by pro-bassoonist; 01-22-08 at 02:21 PM.
#43
Well, it may not matter to the just-good-enough crowd, but 28 Days Later has a DTS HD-MA track which I very much enjoyed. That being said, the only way I bought this was as part of a BOGO lol.
#44
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just have to say something: Why wouldn't they release this on Blu-Ray? If it's a rip, don't buy it, because in that context every Blu-Ray disc is a rip. Blu-Rays hardly cost more to author/manufacture (if anything) and are still twice as much as DVDs. Get used to it.
#45
Banned by request
Originally Posted by Josh Z
It's one thing to release a movie that doesn't take full advantage of the format. It's another to release a movie that doesn't take any advantage of the format. What is the point, when there's already a perfectly good DVD edition available?
Originally Posted by Josh Z
Will next we be seeing a Blu-ray release of Derek Jarman's Blue, a movie comprised of nothing more than voiceover narration playing over a blank blue screen for 79 minutes? How could anyone justify that?
#46
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Chicken Warrior
Blu-Rays hardly cost more to author/manufacture (if anything) and are still twice as much as DVDs. Get used to it.
#47
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
Couldn't the same argument have been made for movies that couldn't take advantage of DVD? Why release it when there's a perfectly good VHS or laserdisc edition out there?
Again, I'm not saying that the movie shouldn't have been released on BD; BD supports storing and playback of SD material. It's the upconverting the SD video and releasing it as an "HD" title that's wrong.
#48
Banned by request
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Can you actually name a movie that couldn't take advantage of DVD? Even if whatever had been originally shot on video, most of the time that was a video format that was better quality than VHS, and even if it had been recorded on VHS, DVD offered no rewinding, quick search, less wear, bonus features, etc., and LD was a dead format.
I guess my point is that, as Adam brought up earlier, every movie possible should be brought over to a format, and this is especially true if the studios are really planning to have BD replace and not just supplement DVD.
#49
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
And once again the formating has absolutely nothing to do with any possible justification of Fox's decision.
Regardless of whether or not the film takes advantage of the format.
All that matters to me is that its integrity was preserved and the director's vision was respected. Period.
As to Fox justifying their release, all they need to cite is: possible BR owners only interest in it, and an opportunity to release the original with the sequel together. Whether or not the film would have looked just fine on SDVD only is a non-issue given the above group of prospective customers I mentioned.
More than likely if I am to use the logic you applied to 28 Days Later I will be questioning some releases in the future. With other words the possible marginal improvement you mentioned in your earlier post might have been enough of a reason for people to get this disc if they already moved to BR software only.
No. I am suggesting that if one is to use some of the same arguments in this thread used to argue against Boyle's film and its right to be released on BR then one could easily make the same ludicrous argument against The Blair Witch on SDVD. At the time there were enough VHS machines in people's homes to "justify" a VHS release only. Yet, it arrived on SDVD as well.
No, this isn't the point. As an enthusiast my first priority is to locate the film I wish to own in my library. Then research the best possible versions. If such do not exist and I am stuck with one release only then I will add the film to my library regardless.
You can not make a credible case that the BR release was sub-par as the integrity of the film was preserved.
Your argument(s) go as far as to argue that an SDVD only release would have been good enough.
As I have noted already this would be a valid point of view only if you consider those who are willing to still purchase SDVD. Those who have already made the switch to BR only will obviously settle for the above mentioned release.
As to the 99% of the population and what they may or may not expect...it is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. Just as Dave Mack's expectations were a non-issue once it was explicitly made obvious that his expectations were not in sync with Coppola's vision.
In this specific case the BR is just a carrier where Boyle's film isn't inferior looking to the SDVD version of it.
Once again I refer you to the thread we had/have here at TALK about people bidding farewell to SDVD.
#50
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
Blue seems like a good example. Since it's just a blank blue screen with narration, it wouldn't need any resolution higher than VHS.
I guess my point is that, as Adam brought up earlier, every movie possible should be brought over to a format, and this is especially true if the studios are really planning to have BD replace and not just supplement DVD.
Last edited by Jay G.; 01-23-08 at 01:02 AM.