Test: DVDs and Blu-Ray Remakes Nearly Same

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

_Cubase_

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
207
0
18,830
0
...adding to my above post: also the amount of graphic detail in any given shot/film DOES effect the size, becuase in VBR encodings (which is how most flicks are encoded) it will cause the bitrate to spike in order to accurately represent any increase in details on screen. This is especially prevalent in shots with smoke or snow. So if you have a pretty static film with a bitare set to be between 10-40mbps, it will spend more time hovering around 10mbps, and thus the overall size of the film will be smaller. Have more detailed scenes, and... well, you get the picture. If you have a PS3, have your status screen up when watching a BD movie, and watch that bitrate dance!
 

Parsian

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2007
359
0
18,930
0
Film has enough information to extract high quality digital movie if the source film is still in good shape.

However, from personal experience with consumer products such as Video Enhancer and vReveal, I have come to conclusion that the ultimate method for upconverting DVD source, is through the Super Resolution up-sizing and in addition, sharpening and adjustment of contrast.

I have got very good results upconverting some scene of Saving Ryan's Privat.. I means Saving Private Ryan's to 1080p from 480p.
 

mauller07

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2010
249
0
18,960
35
Only movies recorded using modern camcorders or HD camcorders are worth buying and watching on bluray so basically anything from 2004 ish onwards.
 

Chris_TC

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2010
36
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]BWMerlin[/nom]There must be a lot of money to milk out of consumers that justifies re-releaseing old and crappy films that were once on VHS onto DVD and now onto Blu-Ray[/citation]
The majority of theatrically released movies was shot on 35mm. Both nowadays and 60 years ago. In terms of definition, a 60 year old movie can look every bit as good as a movie from 2010.
 

daglesj

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2007
82
0
18,580
0
What I find annoying is that a lot of recent DVD releases have been squashed down to single layer 4.5GB size. I havent come across a DVD thats gone over 7Gb in ages. I'm not sure if the studios have switched to single layer DVDs for distribution if they are cheaper. A DVD mastered up to its max size can look really fantastic and is perfectly watchable.

Why they dont master the movies to maximum size for both DVD and BD baffles me. It should be quicker for the mastering team to arrange, makes the filesharers have to compress it all the more and gives better quality picture to the paying customer.

I can only think of two reasons.

1. They want the gap between DVD and BD to widen as much as possible.

2. They can release a movie early in BD's life at say 15GB and then release a 'remaster' in 5 years time at 25GB that looks even better....then another at 30GB+.......


I also love the comments here from kids that dont understand we've had better than HD specification movies in 16mm to 70mm film for decades.
 

teaser

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2008
94
0
18,580
4
[citation][nom]Chris_TC[/nom]The majority of theatrically released movies was shot on 35mm. Both nowadays and 60 years ago. In terms of definition, a 60 year old movie can look every bit as good as a movie from 2010.[/citation]

Very True..The Maltese Falcon on BD looks incredible,while The Graduate just barely passes,but I only paid 5.00 for my DVD-Blu-ray combo of The Graduate... another movie that looks incredible on BD is The Life Of Brian....
 

eddieroolz

Distinguished
Moderator
Sep 6, 2008
3,485
0
20,730
0
Just look at Disney, they're making boatloads of money from "re-releasing their vault collection! Get it before it goes back into the vault for another 25 whatever years!".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY