What's the POINT of putting OLD movies on Blu-ray? They're not even filmed in HD!

Website - http://www.zaranyzerak.com

MY ALBUM, "Empire Building" - http://tinyurl.com/yebm2cc (also available on amazon and iTunes!)

Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/zaranyzerak
Audio Blog - http://zaranyzerak.tumblr.com
Friday Night Chatroom - http://www.stickam.com/zaranyzerak

Why bother putting old movies on Blu-ray? They're not going to look any better than the DVD versions, really. Right? Let's have a good rant about it and see how true that is...

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• hd
• rants
• zaranyzerak
• hdtv
• blu-ray
• bluray
• br
• bd
• brd
• dvd
• old
• movies
• 4k
• imax
• 1080p
• film
• resolution
• rant
• review

[apeman1980]

@Zaranyzerak Hi There, i just watched all of ur HD Rants, and i believe you bud, i do see the difference between blu ray and dvd and yes i do believe blu ray is way better resolution, some people obviously cant see the picture quality difference, their eyes must be fucked up or somethin lol. i have a brand new system here, i have one of those LG Cinema 3D HDTVs here, awesome tv by the way, Passive 3D looks Amazing on it!! i noticed on ur channel, ur from BC, Canada, Prince Edward Island here!!

[Zaranyzerak]

@apeman1980 Greetings, fellow crazy Canuck! Yeah, I've checked out those Passive 3D TVs in stores, awesome stuff. That's what I always said 3DTV should have been in the first place!. Active Shutter glasses are just so damn heavy, cumbersome, EXPENSIVE, and need to be recharged constantly.

[Zaranyzerak]

@Delorean100 Please watch the video before commenting. Thanks.

[Zaranyzerak]

@Miller14100 Like I told the guy above you, please watch the video before commenting. I'll give you a hint as to why: Some of my favorite Blu-ray transfers: Taxi Driver, Blade Runner, Psycho, How the West Was Won, Star Trek (60's series, the movies look like shit), The Prisoner (60's series). Getting a clue now? Commenting solely on a video title makes you look like the idiot.

[Usul573]

@Zaranyzerak

I still wonder about a good 46'' screen and being a proper distance away, and then if we can really see beyond 1920x1080p on that.

[kfyatek]

@Zaranyzerak Well, pretty much everything looks better when it is scanned in higher resolution and carefully downscaled than when scanned in the target resolution from the start. It's better to do processing on higher resolution scans as well. I specifically looked up >=8K scans (of stills, but still frame is even bigger than movie's) and pretty much everything that is lost after downscaling four times is grain noise.

[Zaranyzerak]

@kfyatek It's rare for a Blu-ray master to be struck from a nth generation film. More often than not it's either from the original negative, or from an interpositive made from the original negative. Wizard of Oz was scanned at 8K resolution form the original negative. Blade Runner was scanned at 4K for the live action elements, 6K for the effects elements. If there wasn't additional detail to be extracted from those frames, they wouldn't bother with that high a resolution scan.

[kfyatek]

@Zaranyzerak If you're taking the number of grain in the celluloid and comparing it to the pixel count, then yes, you're right. But if we were to compare the actual detail reproduction ability, it's getting vague. Well, you may be right that by scanning the original camera negatives we would get more than 4K. But taking into account that the master prints are nth-generation film, I think it's still closer to 1080p.

[Zaranyzerak]

@kfyatek Not to mention 4K is pointless to have in the home because you would need a screen the size of your entire wall to even see a difference. Doubly pointless because most people who have HDTV now, don't have screens larger than 42".It might be a niche thing, for the handful of people with video projectors and a screen that can take advantage of it, but I don't see it making much impact. 35mm is closer to 4K than 1080. Higher, actually. Look it up.

[kfyatek]

So, for now, you're totally right, the difference between DVD (especially in NTSC regions) and BD is stunning; I hardly can watch anything in SD anymore after getting used to 1080p ;)

But in a few years, when a "4K Video Disc" enters the market, there really won't be much point in re-releasing most (I say most, because there are ones filmed in 70mm and other formats) pre-digital movies on it. You will only get more realistic film-like grain and not much more actual detail.

[kfyatek]

Actually, I wouldn't agree that 35mm film has "exponentially" more detail than 1080p. Of course, it depends on the type and quality of the film and equipment originally used, among other factors, but the 4K/8K scans are done mainly to have high quality masters to work with; to ensure that no detail is lost during the scanning phase. The actual resolution of 35mm film masters is typically much closer to 2K/1080p than 4K.

[Zaranyzerak]

@DjFobse95 Of course they look good, they were shot with film. Film is far higher resolution than HD, as I cover in this video.