Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
#1
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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?
.
---
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?
.
#3
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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?
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 BD of Superman: Doomsday obliterates the dvd version in picture quality. I should know as I own both and compared them extensively.
#5
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
#6
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
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.
#7
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Midlothian, VA
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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....
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
I can tell it looks better but it's all still meh to me.
#9
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
#10
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
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.
#11
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
#12
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
#13
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Viva BuyMoria!
Posts: 3,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
From South Park to Lawrence of Arabia.
and if the PQ isn't enough the Audio is (much, much) better too.
#14
Suspended
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
What about a a HD version of your parents doing in - would you watch it?
#15
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
#16
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
"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.
#17
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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...
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...
Last edited by PatrickMcCart; 02-22-09 at 12:18 PM.
#18
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
#19
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
#21
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
#22
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Viva BuyMoria!
Posts: 3,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#23
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.
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.
#24
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
B5Erik has created a master list thread 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).
#25
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
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.