Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
06-25-10, 11:17 AM
#1
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
Video quality rating rundown in numbers based on DVDTalk Reviews.
1951 Blu-rays Reviewed.
Video Quality Rating
5.0 - 6% (130)
4.5 - 16% (313)
4.0 - 34% (677)
3.5 - 20% (397)
3.0 - 11% (216)
2.5 - 7% (142)
2.0 - 2% (47)
I was a bit surprised when I saw the results. Somehow I expected more 4.5 or 5.0 ratings. What's up with that?
1951 Blu-rays Reviewed.
Video Quality Rating
5.0 - 6% (130)
4.5 - 16% (313)
4.0 - 34% (677)
3.5 - 20% (397)
3.0 - 11% (216)
2.5 - 7% (142)
2.0 - 2% (47)
I was a bit surprised when I saw the results. Somehow I expected more 4.5 or 5.0 ratings. What's up with that?
06-25-10, 11:46 AM
#3
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
I agree with the original post - It's still a concerning percentage.
Are movie companies slacking now that blu-rays are popular in order to get customers to double/triple dip again as was done with DVD?
Are movie companies slacking now that blu-rays are popular in order to get customers to double/triple dip again as was done with DVD?
06-25-10, 11:48 AM
#4
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
In comparison: 8,749 of the 28,086 DVD reviews on DVD Talk have a video rating of 4.0 or above with is only 31%. And only 8% of DVD reviews have a video rating of 4.5 or above.
I think Blu-ray is doing just fine.
I think Blu-ray is doing just fine.
06-25-10, 11:54 AM
#5
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Update: BACK
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-25-10, 12:02 PM
#6
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
5.0 and 4.5 are perfect and near-perfect, respectively. The numbers reflect that about 1 in 5 titles receive a near-perfect score or better on video quality, which sounds about right to me.
06-25-10, 12:25 PM
#8
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
I would assume the reveiws are relative to Blu Ray and if compared to DVD, would probably fall in the 4.5-5 range. I look at it, that BR has set the bar higher and should be judged on more exacting standards vs Standard def. Are there examples of more PQ on some releases that could have been better? Of course. But, I would wager overall, BR is probably statistically higher rated than SD dvd's. That is just a guess on my part based on my own experience.
06-25-10, 12:43 PM
#9
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
I would assume the reveiws are relative to Blu Ray and if compared to DVD, would probably fall in the 4.5-5 range. I look at it, that BR has set the bar higher and should be judged on more exacting standards vs Standard def. Are there examples of more PQ on some releases that could have been better? Of course. But, I would wager overall, BR is probably statistically higher rated than SD dvd's. That is just a guess on my part based on my own experience.
06-25-10, 01:00 PM
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
Part of the reason is because sometimes, they're using older masters. Some of them go back 10 years. And, aside from their age, often DNR and EE were used in a way that may have benefited the DVD versions, but looks bad on BD. So, it's hit or miss when it comes to catalog titles.
Most new releases look great, but again, the source can be a limiting factor. I recommend reading what the reviewer has to say about the transfer instead of worrying about the numbers. For instance, The reviewer for The Counterfeiters gave it 3 stars, which might seem disappointing. But if you read the review, he says he believes the look is intentional (it was shot on 16mm film and has muted colors). I imagine it would be difficult coming up with a fair assessment for the numeric rating when you're dealing with a movie like that.
Also, remember that expectations change. A transfer that got 5 stars in 2006 may not rate as such in 2010.
Most new releases look great, but again, the source can be a limiting factor. I recommend reading what the reviewer has to say about the transfer instead of worrying about the numbers. For instance, The reviewer for The Counterfeiters gave it 3 stars, which might seem disappointing. But if you read the review, he says he believes the look is intentional (it was shot on 16mm film and has muted colors). I imagine it would be difficult coming up with a fair assessment for the numeric rating when you're dealing with a movie like that.
Also, remember that expectations change. A transfer that got 5 stars in 2006 may not rate as such in 2010.
06-25-10, 01:23 PM
#11
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
I understand that in 1999 the DVD for THE MATRIX was great, but now the blu-ray for THE MATRIX is better. Is there going to be another technology home video format that is going to make current blu-ray look less quality? Or it's unrealistic because blu-ray is supposed to match the video quality as shown in theaters?
06-25-10, 01:48 PM
#12
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,818
Received 1,881 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
There's that, but what Drexl is saying is that even DVD improved dramatically over the course of its lifetime. A DVD that we were all amazed by in 1999 might've seemed kind of blah in, say, 2003. Encoders got better over time, studios figured out better ways to manage bit budgets, we bought larger/better TVs that left us more discerning... Even since the launch of Blu-ray, a disc that might've gotten 4.5 stars at launch in 2006 may only be a 3.5 if reviewed today.
06-25-10, 02:52 PM
#13
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
This thread is the reason almost all reviewers despise being forced to use the star rating scale.
06-25-10, 02:57 PM
#14
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,818
Received 1,881 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
I'm definitely in the star-hating camp.
06-25-10, 10:11 PM
#17
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
Good Article from Hunt on the Bits yesterday (quoted in parts):
Soapbox
Why Are Catalog Sales Down 20%?
....The situation with Blu-ray is even more irritating for movie fans: MANY of them are DESPERATE to re-buy their favorite films in high-definition, provided they have brand new HD transfers to ensure the very best A/V quality, and include genuinely interesting and illuminating new special features. I know this because I hear from them every day, and because I'm one of them myself! But instead, the studios are all too often recycling old HD masters done for HD cable or satellite broadcast - or even for a previous DVD release many years before - and they're pushing them through a heavy-handed digital clean-up process and releasing the result on Blu-ray for $34.99....
....But the bottom line is that Blu-ray is a MOVIE format, above and beyond anything else. And as is (and should always be) the case with any movie format, it's the PICTURE AND SOUND THAT MATTER MOST! If a studio can't be bothered to get that most critical part right, then all the rest of the BD-Java and BD-Live stuff is just putting the cart before the horse....
....No catalog Blu-ray Disc should EVER be released with an HD master that's more than a couple years old! The state of the art in HD transfer and mastering technology is just moving too fast, and in order to achieve the best quality picture and sound that people expect of Blu-ray, you have to start with the best elements - not recycled ones. And simply including a bonus DVD and Digital Copy, along with murky layers of online-connected interactive features - none of that crap excites a movie fan to a new purchase....
....They're ARE studios who already know these things, of course, and who are doing a great job with catalog DVD and Blu-ray releases (and even TV DVDs), but they tend to be the smaller operations who really truly understand their audience and know that you have to give them what they want... not just feed them what's easy for you to give them. Think Criterion, Shout! Factory, Image, Blue Underground, Synapse, Kino, etc. Of course, that's not to say that there isn't certainly very good transfer work being done at the major studios. Think of Paramount's fine African Queen and Braveheart Blu-rays, Warner's North by Northwest and How the West Was Won, Fox's very good Mel Brooks Collection, Disney's Armageddon, Lionsgate's latest Dirty Dancing BD, Sony's recent Karate Kid BDs. Excellent work IS happening, and making it to the format. But they are also FAR too many major catalog BDs falling through the cracks with subpar transfers - Gladiator, Patton, Flash Gordon, Spartacus, etc. Titles people were really excited for... until they actually brought them home and watched them. And these do far more to damage the Blu-ray format than anything else....
....Bottom line: There are still LOTS of consumers who want to buy great catalog physical product on DVD and Blu-ray. The window of opportunity is still open, that market still exists, and it's to EVERYONE'S advantage for the major Hollywood studios to cater to it, to encourage it and to not just keep it alive, but get it thriving again. It CAN be done. But all the low-lying fruit has been picked already, so it requires a little more focus and effort - and frankly vision - on the part of you studio types. And the clock is ticking...
....The situation with Blu-ray is even more irritating for movie fans: MANY of them are DESPERATE to re-buy their favorite films in high-definition, provided they have brand new HD transfers to ensure the very best A/V quality, and include genuinely interesting and illuminating new special features. I know this because I hear from them every day, and because I'm one of them myself! But instead, the studios are all too often recycling old HD masters done for HD cable or satellite broadcast - or even for a previous DVD release many years before - and they're pushing them through a heavy-handed digital clean-up process and releasing the result on Blu-ray for $34.99....
....But the bottom line is that Blu-ray is a MOVIE format, above and beyond anything else. And as is (and should always be) the case with any movie format, it's the PICTURE AND SOUND THAT MATTER MOST! If a studio can't be bothered to get that most critical part right, then all the rest of the BD-Java and BD-Live stuff is just putting the cart before the horse....
....No catalog Blu-ray Disc should EVER be released with an HD master that's more than a couple years old! The state of the art in HD transfer and mastering technology is just moving too fast, and in order to achieve the best quality picture and sound that people expect of Blu-ray, you have to start with the best elements - not recycled ones. And simply including a bonus DVD and Digital Copy, along with murky layers of online-connected interactive features - none of that crap excites a movie fan to a new purchase....
....They're ARE studios who already know these things, of course, and who are doing a great job with catalog DVD and Blu-ray releases (and even TV DVDs), but they tend to be the smaller operations who really truly understand their audience and know that you have to give them what they want... not just feed them what's easy for you to give them. Think Criterion, Shout! Factory, Image, Blue Underground, Synapse, Kino, etc. Of course, that's not to say that there isn't certainly very good transfer work being done at the major studios. Think of Paramount's fine African Queen and Braveheart Blu-rays, Warner's North by Northwest and How the West Was Won, Fox's very good Mel Brooks Collection, Disney's Armageddon, Lionsgate's latest Dirty Dancing BD, Sony's recent Karate Kid BDs. Excellent work IS happening, and making it to the format. But they are also FAR too many major catalog BDs falling through the cracks with subpar transfers - Gladiator, Patton, Flash Gordon, Spartacus, etc. Titles people were really excited for... until they actually brought them home and watched them. And these do far more to damage the Blu-ray format than anything else....
....Bottom line: There are still LOTS of consumers who want to buy great catalog physical product on DVD and Blu-ray. The window of opportunity is still open, that market still exists, and it's to EVERYONE'S advantage for the major Hollywood studios to cater to it, to encourage it and to not just keep it alive, but get it thriving again. It CAN be done. But all the low-lying fruit has been picked already, so it requires a little more focus and effort - and frankly vision - on the part of you studio types. And the clock is ticking...
06-26-10, 06:50 AM
#19
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
3.5 would seem to be an average blu-ray, and 76% are rated average or above. Seems the numbers are too high to me.
06-26-10, 06:59 AM
#20
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,818
Received 1,881 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
That's part of the reason why I hate assigning arbitrary numbers to things.
I do skew slightly positive, I guess. I'd say my default rating for a Blu-ray disc starts at 3.5 / 5 rather than the numeric average of 2.5. 3.5 to my mind means "genuinely nice looking", 4.0 is even more impressive, 4.5 is a remarkable presentation, and 5.0 is jawdroppingly beyond all of my expectations. To go a little further back, 3.0 means "good but not great", 2.5 is "disappointing but watchable", and anything lower than that means there are glaring flaws.
In my opinion, most Blu-ray discs really are genuinely nice looking, so it follows that most of them carry a rating of 3.5 or above.
There's undoubtedly score inflation in general, and people expect it. If we used a different methodology, we'd be so far out of line with every other site that I think users would find our reviews less useful. At least it's not as bad as it is with video games where so many people think 7 / 10 is a damning score and 8 / 10 is marginal.
I do skew slightly positive, I guess. I'd say my default rating for a Blu-ray disc starts at 3.5 / 5 rather than the numeric average of 2.5. 3.5 to my mind means "genuinely nice looking", 4.0 is even more impressive, 4.5 is a remarkable presentation, and 5.0 is jawdroppingly beyond all of my expectations. To go a little further back, 3.0 means "good but not great", 2.5 is "disappointing but watchable", and anything lower than that means there are glaring flaws.
In my opinion, most Blu-ray discs really are genuinely nice looking, so it follows that most of them carry a rating of 3.5 or above.
There's undoubtedly score inflation in general, and people expect it. If we used a different methodology, we'd be so far out of line with every other site that I think users would find our reviews less useful. At least it's not as bad as it is with video games where so many people think 7 / 10 is a damning score and 8 / 10 is marginal.
06-26-10, 11:03 AM
#21
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
05-10-11, 05:55 AM
#22
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
06/25/10
1951 Blu-rays Reviewed.
Video Quality Rating
5.0 - 6% (130)
4.5 - 16% (313)
4.0 - 34% (677)
3.5 - 20% (397)
3.0 - 11% (216)
2.5 - 7% (142)
2.0 - 2% (47)
05/10/11
2,687 Blu-rays Reviewed.
Video Quality Rating
5.0 - 6% (177)
4.5 - 18% (485)
4.0 - 34% (916)
3.5 - 20% (557)
3.0 - 10% (281)
2.5 - 6% (172)
2.0 - 2% (61)
Only checking and comparing numbers, though one should read actual reviews for PQ rating explanations.
Slightly less 5.0 PQ ratings (2010: 6.66% 2011: 6.58%) compared to last year. 4.5 ratings increased by 2%.
1951 Blu-rays Reviewed.
Video Quality Rating
5.0 - 6% (130)
4.5 - 16% (313)
4.0 - 34% (677)
3.5 - 20% (397)
3.0 - 11% (216)
2.5 - 7% (142)
2.0 - 2% (47)
05/10/11
2,687 Blu-rays Reviewed.
Video Quality Rating
5.0 - 6% (177)
4.5 - 18% (485)
4.0 - 34% (916)
3.5 - 20% (557)
3.0 - 10% (281)
2.5 - 6% (172)
2.0 - 2% (61)
Only checking and comparing numbers, though one should read actual reviews for PQ rating explanations.
Slightly less 5.0 PQ ratings (2010: 6.66% 2011: 6.58%) compared to last year. 4.5 ratings increased by 2%.
05-10-11, 11:08 AM
#23
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ma...ial/index.html
4K is about 4-6 times the resolution of 1080p, depending on aspect ratio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
1080p is close to the 2K resolution used in many theatrical projectors, although newer projectors can display 4K.
There's also the question of 70mm prints, which may need 6K or 8K scans in order to grab all the detail the film provides.
Also, keep in mind that a lot of bigger budget films in the past decade went through a digital intermediate, which would be the maximum resolution available for theatrical or home video release. Some of these films were mastered in 2K, so even if the original film elements have more detail, the finished theatrical prints did not. Then there are movies that were shot digitally in 2K, meaning they have no extra detail to give.
Aside from this, there's additional factors that go into home video quality besides resolution. There's the quality of the print used, the quality of the scanning process, any digital restoration or color correction done, any other digital alteration like DNR or edge enhancement, and finally the efficiency and bitrate of the compression scheme used.
05-10-11, 01:38 PM
#24
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
Also, not everything gets remastered when any release that came out in the 90's or earlier should get cleaned up. That's just my opinion. A release like Taxi Driver shouldn't be an anomaly it should be the standard.
05-13-11, 09:32 PM
#25
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Blu-ray video quality lacking quality?
I think studios have to balance the cost of remastering in HD, which is very expensive, to the public demand.
It's a double-edge sword because the demand for many potential Blu-ray catalogue titles just aren't there.
Studios can't even justify pressing 1000 copies of several titles on DVD and instead offer them by mail on a burned DVD-R.
The price of pressing Blu-ray discs has come down considerably but the price of properly mastering in HD has probably been the same.
It's a double-edge sword because the demand for many potential Blu-ray catalogue titles just aren't there.
Studios can't even justify pressing 1000 copies of several titles on DVD and instead offer them by mail on a burned DVD-R.
The price of pressing Blu-ray discs has come down considerably but the price of properly mastering in HD has probably been the same.