juanmgonzalez

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!!!"

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

darkside

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.

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.

Supermallet

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.

Qui Gon Jim

Here here. The look of this movie was an artistic decision made by the fillmaker. From all reports, the BD presents the film in the best possible manner. The "limitations" are not of the format but of the source.

darkside

I would think releasing stuff that really doesn't look great on HD would make more sense when/if the format reaches wide adoption. There have been a few strange choices like Meaning of Life that look so identical to the DVD you wonder why the studio picked them for release. 28 Days makes more sense than most because they were releasing the sequel the same day.

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.

pro-bassoonist

I was talking about Boyle's film and am perfectly aware how it was shot. Though I misplaced the titles in my head, and ended up referring to the sequel.

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

pro-bassoonist

I would be the first to slam any such direction. If there is even a remote chance that the distribs begin to ponder what is and what isn't I would be immensely disapointed.

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

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.

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.

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?

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-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.

On this I agree with you Jay...perhaps in the future any such formatings should be noted on the cover, next to OAR! I think that as the format goes forward a lot of these kinks will be addressed (just like anamorphic evolved with SDVD).
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. And the format I have chosen to purchase the show on is simply a carrier. 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.

Pro-B

Jay G.

I can see the new advertising slogan now: "BD: Doesn't look any worse than SD DVD!"

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.

So?

Are you trying to suggest that people thought that The Blair Witch Project didn't deserve to be released on VHS and DVD?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

applesandrice

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.

Ian Whitcombe

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.

pro-bassoonist

And once again the formating has absolutely nothing to do with any possible justification of Fox's decision. All I am trying to reveal to you is that if BR is expected to be the next mass format and people have already stopped buying SDVD (there are plenty on this very forum who supposedly bid farewell to it in a huge thread with a similar title) I don't see why one should question Fox's decision to put it on BR. 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.

Different people have different criteria.

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 (let's use Zulawski as an example again, his Szamanka is only available on a Russian DVD ported from a French VHS where the original Polish audio is over-dubbed with Russian and French. Given the Catholic Church's vehement critique of this film I have accepted that this disc is the only best version I will own, for obvious reasons). How does this relate to Boyle's film? 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.

No I don't. Pan/Scanning was a lie as I knew that the integrity of the film subject of such a treatment was damaged. As I implied above the integrity of Boyle's film presented on BR isn't.

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.

Read the Szamanka summary above.

Actually it does. Once again I refer you to the thread we had/have here at TALK about people bidding farewell to SDVD.

Pro-B

Hammer99

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.

Chicken Warrior

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.

Supermallet

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?

Why not? I can't think of a better tie-in for Blu-ray.

Jay G.

Actually, BDs do cost significantly more to author, master, and manufacture than regular DVDs. It uses advanced new codecs, new authoring techniques, and demands much more powerful technology. Even the pressing is more expensive, since it uses new pressing techniques.

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.

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.

Supermallet

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.

Jay G.

And again, I've never said that they shouldn't have released the movie on BD. For me however, the upconverting of the video and marketing it as HD is the problem, leading to unreasonable expectations of the video quality of this release.

The movie can "take advantage of the format" just fine. I can imagine about a thousand possible legitimate uses an SD release could use the extra space and technology for, but storing the SD content in an upconverted HD, which the player would've done when outputting anyway, just to market it as an "HD" release isn't one of them.

The film's integrity may be preserved, but the studio's integrity certainly isn't. And one could argue that the SD DVD release preserves the integrity even better than the BD, since the BD does offer a minuscule increase in video quality, which from the way this movie was shot was obviously not what the director intended.

Anyone who owns a BD player by default owns a DVD player. I'd imagine that if this BD had been mastered with the video in it's proper SD format, the demand for it in BD wouldn't have been as pronounced, meaning that it wasn't the disc format that drove sales, but the promise of an improved viewing experience that most associate with HD.

If someone only bought discs on BD, then yes, a BD with the movie in SD but with the improved codecs, sound, and possibly extras might've been enough to persuade them to buy the BD, which would've been all well and good. It's the fact that Fox decided that nobody would buy it on BD unless it was artificially increased to HD that irks me.

Blair Witch was recorded in DV and 16mm film, both of which are higher quality than VHS. In fact, the 16mm footage is of better quality than even SD DVD can fully handle.

Of course, this doesn't apply to 28 Days Later, as there's certainly more than one release of that film. Even if the BD was the only release, the upconverted HD stored on the disc wouldn't suddenly be correct, just tolerable.

I can however make the case that for an HD release, the disc was sub-par, since it was based on an SD source. That's my point: not that the HD upconversion ruins the film, most people would've upconverted it on the TV anyway, but that the upconversion was a dirty little marketing ploy to con unsuspecting consumers into buying a movie that doesn't benefit from that increased stored resolution.

No, again and again I have stated that a BD release is fine: BD can store and play SD material, in SD, just as easily as it can store and play HD material.

I don't see why you assume that BD owners will only settle for all that they buy be in HD, even when the original material wasn't recorded in a way to benefit from that increased resolution. By your logic, BD owners will only settle for HD releases of All in the Family and other movies and shows shot on video, instead of the far more reasonable solution of simply storing SD material on BD in SD.

There's a difference between having different color and brightness preferences for a film and expecting a movie released in HD to actually be HD. The former is a difference of opinion, the latter is a bait-and-switch.

And the BD could've still just as easily been that without Fox slapping an upconverted "HD" transfer on it.

This is the first time you've referred me to a different thread, so I don't see how you can be doing it "again." In any case, bidding farewell to SD DVD doesn't mean bidding away to SD, as BD can handle that resolution just as capably as HD, as a plethora of extras on various HD disc releases can attest to.

Jay G.

But DVD of course offers far more that just better resolution than VHS. In fact, due to the high compressibility of a static screen, the DVD would have a plethora of space available for additional films and/or extras, while a VHS or LD would've been just as full with a static screen as with a constantly changing one.

As I've stated, there's nothing stopping studios from releasing SD material on BD in SD. It's not the format that's the problem, it's the artificially increased resolution.