Aceguy

I didn't post this in the Blu-Ray forum because I know the answer will be yes. My question is, is image quality everything to people? It seems people care more about the image quality of a film than they do about the actual film. You see people on a ton of Blu-Ray forums complaining about transfers and saying " DVD's are almost unwatchable" and all of that stuff. Whatever happened to story and characters. Do we live with so many crappy films in theaters that we don't care anymore? I personally care a lot less about image quality and more about story. While I prefer DVD and BD, I am actually fine with VHS. Granted, it is a dead format in terms of Home video (it is still used for production), VHS was watchable. I do not like it much mainly just because most tapes were Fullscreen (glad that that doesn't happen much anymore!) I only care about if the image quality of something is watchable. It does not need to be the highest available quality for me to enjoy it. I am content with watching DVD because the image quality is high enough for me. As for story, I care more about that when I'm watching a film because that is the most important part of the film other than visuals. Now I realize that people like better image quality because it "aids" the visuals. Again, I do think the visuals should be displayed in a great manner and I think DVD can provide that as well as BD. I will acknowledge that HD looks better than SD but I don't gain more from it. The visuals are better but then again, that's why I use both modern home video formats. I think image quality should stop being the most important part of a film. As long as the story and the visuals are high quality, then image quality is not important. Feel free to post your opinions because I'm afraid my mini essay contradicts itself at some points and I want to hear what everyone thinks.

Obi-Wanma

It's not everything, I won't buy a crappy movie on BD just because it looks good, but it does matter. I will still watch a DVD if I really want to see something and I don't have the BD, but I try not to buy anything on DVD anymore unless I'm fairly certain it's never coming to BD (I have been burned a few times when my wife asked me to get her something that wasn't available yet on BD, and no release date was announced, so I bought the DVD, and the BD is announced less than 6 months later. That really bothered me). I also will upgrade pretty much anything I have on DVD to BD if I can find it for 5-10 bucks (I will upgrade anything for 5 bucks, if it's something I really want to watch on BD, I will go up to 10).

Also, I will admit that if I'm looking for a movie to watch, I won't even look at my DVD's. I will only pull out a DVD if I have an itch to watch a particular movie that I don't have on BD.

milo bloom

What's needed is a distinction between a bad transfer with macro-blocking, excessive DNR, whatever causes that "waxy-face" effect; and then those transfers that are simply a little older, maybe because the materials weren't so great, or the film has never looked good because of budget.

The latter ones I'll keep, because the story/character/etc are more important, but if it's truly visually distracting, then I'll upgrade to Blu.

Example: Star Trek: The Next Generation - The DVDs are garbage. Fuzzy, poor detail, macro-blocking all over the place, and even though it's one of the greatest TV shows ever the DVDs were just so bad I sold off my complete series set as soon as I heard about the Blurays.

A different example: The original Mothra film. I watched this not too long ago. It's 16x9, and looks decent I'd say, but I know the AV nazis wouldn't like it. But I was watching on a 46" LCD and it held up pretty well. Combined with the fact that kaiju films are few and far between for upgrades, I'll be keeping it for a long while.

Ash Ketchum

I appreciate your post, Aceguy, because I definitely understand your position. I have a Blu-ray player, but I only upgrade when the price is right and when it's something that has strong visual appeal and happens to be a favorite film that I plan to watch a few more times before I die, like THE SEARCHERS and THE WILD BUNCH.

I still have thousands of unwatched films and TV episodes on VHS and hundreds more on DVD. For certain genres, e.g. anime, the DVD upgrades were most welcome, since my originals were often bootleg fan-subs. But for certain things, it really doesn't matter much what I watch it on. I love westerns, but I don't need to see pristine copies of all of them. Sure, if they were in color and widescreen and featured spectacular location photography, I'd want to see the best possible copy. But, for your run-of-the-mill black-and-white B-western or TV episode, I can enjoy them fine on VHS at the slow speed taped off cable. Of course, I have to watch them on a 13-inch cathode ray tube set, since the 32-inch SONY Bravia is rather unforgiving towards VHS.

If I discover a previously unknown gem that has some excellent photography and I get the chance to upgrade, that would be fine. I'm very happy to pick up DVDs with multiple westerns on them and, to give one example, I was really happy to see THE MAN FROM THE ALAMO again when I picked up a western package on DVD. My previous copy was taped off broadcast TV sometime in the 1980s. It turned out to be so good that I was glad I got the upgrade. But, by the same token, I've seen tons more that are perfectly good westerns but look just fine on VHS.

I have original Japanese VHS pre-records of old anime shows and some of them look magnificent on my big-screen TV. The quality of these old transfers is just superb. These tapes are generally the only way I can see these classic shows.

Josh-da-man

Put it this way... a shitty movie is a shitty movie no matter how good it looks.

But a good movie can be ruined by poor PQ.

GoldenWheels

I myself wonder how much of the " DVD's are almost unwatchable" crowd (and I have seen that kind of forum poster for SURE here and there) actually watch their movies to watch movies, as opposed to watching movies to show off their home theater system.

Kind of like the Criterion collectors you may see here and there who seem to value slipcovers and spine numbers over the movies themselves.

The movie just may not be that important to them.

Preterite

It was the same for me with Hong Kong genre films. Even the official VHS releases could be washed-out with illegible subs. Seeing these movies on DVD - proper format, clear subtitles, improved picture quality - was a quantum leap forward.

I kind of get the same feeling. Especially in threads where people rant about how crappy DVD is and how they would rather never watch their favorite movies again if it wasn't available in HD.

Mr. Salty

Not necessarily.
No.
You're surprised that people at a forum designed to discuss Blu-ray releases are actually discussing the quality of those releases? They're Blu-ray forums, not movie forums. People go to movie forums to discuss the movies themselves.

Here's another shocker: People in the DVD Forum discuss the quality of DVDs.

I don't think VHS is used for production. It never was, and it certainly isn't now.
But ... but ... what about story and character? Surely that matters to you more than whether a movie is presented in fullscreen or widescreen.

Ash Ketchum

Totally. In fact, I bought my first DVD player (code-free, at a Chinatown store) because my VHS sources for Hong Kong films had dried up and everything was coming out on DVD. Definitely a big difference, esp. when the Shaw Bros. films started coming out in remastered editions on R3 discs. The early legit VHS releases of classic Shaw Bros. were all full-frame--transferred dead center of the screen--which meant that all subtitle lines were cut off on both sides of the frame.

Still, I do have some nostalgia for the dealers who used to make VHS copies of HK films off of laserdiscs and sell them in dealers' rooms at comics conventions or in hole-in-the-wall shops in Manhattan, including one guy who operated out of what used to be a newsstand on 42nd Street and 8th Avenue, just yards away from where all these kung fu movies used to play in theaters in the glory days of the Deuce. That's when I experienced the thrill of discovery and the camaraderie of HK film fans who used to congregate at these places. "You don't have SNAKE IN THE MONKEY'S SHADOW? You GOT to have SNAKE IN THE MONKEY'S SHADOW." And we used to debate the virtues of wire-fu. Those days are gone and I miss them.

Aceguy

I realize that.
Yes story and character but the aspect ratio is important to the story. And before you say anything, yes, the visuals are important as well.

Preterite

In the late 80's/early 90's, I used to take a bus into Chinatown after work to rent VHS tapes from an herbalist's shop. The bus would go down Halsted Street through the Maxwell Street market, and on summer days street vendors would come up to the bus and try to sell us afrocentric porn tapes through the windows. I kept in my wallet a folded piece of notebook paper with a bunch of titles written in both English and Chinese provided by a co-worker, and I would reference this while searching through the shelves for interesting-looking movies.

The herbalist's shop is gone. Maxwell Street market is gone. Afrocentric porn tapes in oversized boxes are gone. It's just me and the bus now, and these days I have a car.

g

I'm perfectly happy with a good quality DVD. I have lots of Blu-ray, but I really get used to whatever I am watching whether it be BD or DVD. I like the large amount of content options available on DVD.

orangerunner

I've seen "Howard the Duck" in 70mm at the theatre and it was a bad movie and I've seen Lawrence of Arabia on VHS (widescreen at least) and it's great.

All things being equal, yes, it's great to see a film in the best possible format available but it's not a dealbreaker.

When Blu-ray players were $300 and discs were $35, DVD was just fine. Now that I'm picking up good titles on Blu-ray between $4-$8 each, I may as well upgrade the DVD if it's a film worth re-watching.

mhanlen1

Image quality is very important to me when I'm considering upgrading a current title I have. I've always hunted down the better quality versions, even during the DVD days- especially for movies in the public domain. If a studio is going to try and sell me something I already have, it better have a nice picture. I've found over the years I don't watch many of the special features on the discs any more. I always hunted down widescreen VHS tapes back in the day when they were available for a movie I really liked, so it's sort of the same thing. If Blu-ray has a marginal picture quality upgrade I usually don't buy it- unless I don't already have the film.

kd5

Awfully nice of you to come in here just to shit on the OP. -kd5-

kd5

Image quality is important to me, it's why I made the transition from VHS to DVD. But it's not so important to me that it overshadows the movie itself. I have only one complaint about any of the DVDs I own (Outland ~ as grainy as a bad VHS video), and I hope it will be remastered one day because I really like the movie. Even though I just bought a blu-ray player, my DVDs still look good to me. One of these days if I ever see a blu-ray of a movie I'd been wanting but hadn't bought yet on DVD, and the price is right, I'll add the first blu-ray to my collection, but it's not that critical to me. I bought the blu-ray player as one step forward, nothing more. To reiterate: Image quality is important but the quality of the story itself means more to me. -kd5-

b2net

kd5, Just have to wait until the price is right.. but you can have less complaints about Outland.. now that it just released on Blu-ray...

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/57014/outland/

kd5

Looking forward to it, especially when it gets down to my price point. I'm in no hurry... -kd5-

Trevor

Image quality is becoming slightly more important to me, as I get better home theater equipment, but is still a very small part of my buying decision, perhaps 10%.

The story is still most of the reason I buy discs, and I'll still occasionally pick the DVD over the BD depending on pricing.

BobO'Link

This exactly.
Wait... you purchased a Blu-ray player!?! I thought I felt the Earth tilting its axis...

Seriously, I fully anticipate feeling the same once I finally purchase a Blu-ray player, but I'm still watching on a 32" CRT so I'm not really feeling pressure to upgrade the player at this point.

kd5

My DVD player was acing wonky more frequently than I felt comfortable with so I decided that instead of buying another DVD player, I'd advance one step forward and buy a blu-ray player. But I wanted one that got good reviews, loaded fast, and was manufactured before the analog sunset. Found the Sony BDP-S570 at Amazon, ended up buying it new at Ebay...

So far I'm really happy with it. My DVDs look at tad better, I can watch blu-rays if I've a mind, I'm even thinking about buying an HDMI to Component adapter for my non-HDMI TV.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack... -kd5-

dillkid

It's the quality of the actual show that I care about, if the price and convenience (having to track it down to buy / and sell DVD copies etc) isn't an issue then I consider that as an afterthought.

TomOpus

But he's right. Some people still don't get that the DVD talk forum is to discuss the DVD itself (picture/audio quality, extras, etc). The Movie Talk forum is to discuss the movie itself.

When I buy a movie, I will try to get the best presentation available. It's my money and my preference.

kd5

Seems like semantics to me, and the unerring capacity for some people to pick at a post/topic until it bleeds. This forum has always been a catch-all for subjects like this. If someone wants to go through the various topics that have been broached in this forum and prune the ones which don't specifically adhere to that definition of what should be posted here and what should not, then have at it. -kd5-

SterlingBen

It sounds like you need a better tv. It will change your opinion on the subject.