A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD - Page 13

nickcole63 · 01-18-2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickER

Your Blu-ray player knows when its playing a Blu-ray disc...the little blue light comes on the front of my machine.

They also physically look different on the information side. So i always know when its a Blu-ray disc. Just because a movie has grain doesnt mean its not HD. As a matter of fact, if it is shot on film, i better see some grain! Beyond that, Dracula on Blu-ray looks great, even with the color changes, and one or two scenes with a darker image from previous versions. Its HD, but maybe i dont understand what your asking. Sorry if thats the case.

Hi, sorry I am not talking about any grain or not being a Blu ray disc. What I am saying is that the recording definition or sharpness is exactly the same as my previous DVD and DVD superbit if not even worse in some frames. Have you actually got this film on normal dvd?? Double check it and see if what I am saying makes sense.This BR movie is the standard version of dracula film in a BR disc, may be only colour corrected improved. I do also not understand people that at all costs want grain in any film. That is usually a sign of a bad master or usually are grained on purpose for special effect. Darker scenes in a dark environment are more susceptible of grain because it was surely shot with a higher ISO film and usually is got nothing to do with special effect but with a bad film master. Have you used a 50iso v 800iso camera film. look at the difference about grain. I was wondering if possibly your American version is a real HD Dracula film but Idoubt about it. What would be the purpose of it??
Regards Nicole

Mike Williams · 01-18-2008, 03:31 PM

nickcole63. You keep saying the resolution is exactly the same as your DVD. That simply isn't true. Does Dracula on BD look as good as Pirates of the Caribbean or Spider-man 3? No. Is it a significant upgrade from the DVD in High Definition? Definitely. If you can't see it the difference -- and clearly you cannot -- perhaps it's best if you sell it off and get something perhaps a little more modern that doesn't use the same type of film stock, filters or other things that have maligned this particular film for you personally.

nickcole63 · 01-19-2008, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Williams

nickcole63. You keep saying the resolution is exactly the same as your DVD. That simply isn't true. Does Dracula on BD look as good as Pirates of the Caribbean or Spider-man 3? No. Is it a significant upgrade from the DVD in High Definition? Definitely. If you can't see it the difference -- and clearly you cannot -- perhaps it's best if you sell it off and get something perhaps a little more modern that doesn't use the same type of film stock, filters or other things that have maligned this particular film for you personally.

Hi, this is the film that I like, why I should buy something else? I can definitely see HQ definition and sharpness on all the BR and HD DVD that I seen without any need to make any comparisons against a SQ DVD version. As I explained already is got nothing to do with any special effect at all and I am not discussing them in any way, but I am sure that they cannot call special effect a SQ definition transfer in a Blu Ray disc. I am actually starting to think that our European version is an SQ transfer and your is not. Will soon buy an American version and let everybody know.
Anyway, is there anyone that thinks that the American transfer is also of a SQ DVD transfer and not an HD Blu Ray transfer on a Blu Ray disc??
Regards Nicole

Mike Williams · 01-19-2008, 10:21 AM

The american version of Dracula is not a great deal sharper or more detailed in many scenes, and it can be quite stunning in others.

nickcole63 · 01-19-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Williams

The american version of Dracula is not a great deal sharper or more detailed in many scenes, and it can be quite stunning in others.

Hi, I am sure is going to be the same but I want to try an American copy which in case I can always sell. Anyway even so I made some good testings here and there, I have not watched this version in full yet. Will let you know, hoping that it will not let me down completely for the new look and PCM sound. At the end of the day I can see that there are many satisfied customers. I believe this version come out in UK in december, so who knows, they might have used a different transfer than yours.
Regards Nicole

David Wilkins · 01-20-2008, 04:19 PM

So much of what has been said, especially toward the end of this thread, not to mention hundreds of others...cause me to fear that hi-def software is doomed to fail, or at best remain strictly niche.

I'm guessing that 80% of the public just won't "get it". The great majority of people aren't very articulate, at least with issues that aren't survival oriented. In short, the extra boost in quality simply doesn't matter to most people. When they're hungry, fast food will do.

I think that the studios, and everybody else involved with bringing high-def into the home, have misjudged. The format war hasn't helped matters, but the underlying issue is, that most people simply don't care.

A good illustration is my wife. I get all excited about the audio quality of a classic work on SACD, and she just shrugs. Doesn't get it, doesn't care. She isn't stupid, far from it. But in such matters, she is inarticulate, and I fear that is a common issue among the general public, that will cause the adoption of hi-def for the home, to go bust.

If it succeeds, it will take a very long time to filter through public sensibilities. A slightly different issue, ironically, will be the broadcast or cable transmission of things such as sporting events. That will carry over more successfully. But, in general...movies...and having to pay for them? My confidence level is very low, and it disappoints me to say so.

Jack Johnson · 01-20-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Wilkins

So much of what has been said, especially toward the end of this thread, not to mention hundreds of others...cause me to fear that hi-def software is doomed to fail, or at best remain strictly niche.

I'm guessing that 80% of the public just won't "get it". The great majority of people aren't very articulate, at least with issues that aren't survival oriented. In short, the extra boost in quality simply doesn't matter to most people. When they're hungry, fast food will do.

I think that the studios, and everybody else involved with bringing high-def into the home, have misjudged. The format war hasn't helped matters, but the underlying issue is, that most people simply don't care.

A good illustration is my wife. I get all excited about the audio quality of a classic work on SACD, and she just shrugs. Doesn't get it, doesn't care. She isn't stupid, far from it. But in such matters, she is inarticulate, and I fear that is a common issue among the general public, that will cause the adoption of hi-def for the home, to go bust.

If it succeeds, it will take a very long time to filter through public sensibilities. A slightly different issue, ironically, will be the broadcast or cable transmission of things such as sporting events. That will carry over more successfully. But, in general...movies...and having to pay for them? My confidence level is very low, and it disappoints me to say so.

Maybe it would've paid for the industry to wait until larger HD displays became more prevalent before rolling out the new media; that would've given the average consumer more of a chance to see the limits of upscaled SD in comparison to the full 1080p signals that can be observed over-the-air. Consumers are thrown by too many roll-outs at once...and the confusion of swapping out the old sets and seeing--often for the first time--what upscaled dvd looks like (often damned good)... Well, I can see why many aren't biting yet.

And it may be all about the larger displays (we're talking the massive ones). I'm still exclusively SD at this point, and with a solid, 36 inch standard def set that features and "enhanced for 16 by 9" mode, I've often reflected how--at this scale--the benefits of HD would be negligible; I get an incredibly film-like image, can spot grain on occasion in the best transfers. More picture information would offer barely perceptible gains for me.

Again, people are just going to need more time to see the limits of SD, upscaled media on their whompin', big new screens before they get a jones to see resolution that brings 'em closer to what film can offer. Otherwise... Smallers sets, especially with 16 by 9 enhancement? Forget about it.

--Jack

Grant H · 01-22-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Johnson

Maybe it would've paid for the industry to wait until larger HD displays became more prevalent before rolling out the new media; that would've given the average consumer more of a chance to see the limits of upscaled SD in comparison to the full 1080p signals that can be observed over-the-air. Consumers are thrown by too many roll-outs at once...and the confusion of swapping out the old sets and seeing--often for the first time--what upscaled dvd looks like (often damned good)... Well, I can see why many aren't biting yet.

And it may be all about the larger displays (we're talking the massive ones). I'm still exclusively SD at this point, and with a solid, 36 inch standard def set that features and "enhanced for 16 by 9" mode, I've often reflected how--at this scale--the benefits of HD would be negligible; I get an incredibly film-like image, can spot grain on occasion in the best transfers. More picture information would offer barely perceptible gains for me.

Again, people are just going to need more time to see the limits of SD, upscaled media on their whompin', big new screens before they get a jones to see resolution that brings 'em closer to what film can offer. Otherwise... Smallers sets, especially with 16 by 9 enhancement? Forget about it.

--Jack

On my 38" CRT, there's a stark difference between SD and HDTV material. And grain renders itself larger in SD (due to being caught between pixels) than HDTV (provided it hasn't been filtered out), so it often looks better in HD.

One thing that should be noticeable to everyone is the superiority color rendition in HD. It was the first things my friends noticed when I popped in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film. Then again, now that people get inferior color from plasma screens and the like perhaps they can't appreciate it.

I think ignorance leads a lot of people to prefer upscaling alogrithms though. They see a clean image, that is technically 1080 lines, but lacks detail (seeing as how there are only 480 lines of information that have basically been doubled), and they see that as "good." When you put the detail back in with HD and people no longer see plastic-y looking images they're turned off. Unfortunately I think most people would prefer their HD to look like 90's CGI.

HD is hardly going nowhere or has failed. How can someone deem it a failure when the format war is just now ending? Player sales have taken off for Blu-ray since the WB announcement. Screens are getting bigger every year. People toss perfectly good sets just to get bigger ones. HD media will be huge by next Christmas. I barely run my DVD player now thanks to Blu-ray and Fios HDTV.

But why is this discussion going on in the Dracula thread?

Jack Johnson · 01-22-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant H

I think ignorance leads a lot of people to prefer upscaling alogrithms though. They see a clean image, that is technically 1080 lines, but lacks detail (seeing as how there are only 480 lines of information that have basically been doubled), and they see that as "good." When you put the detail back in with HD and people no longer see plastic-y looking images they're turned off. Unfortunately I think most people would prefer their HD to look like 90's CGI.

Great point. SD--by stripping out detail--might seem to refine an image, remove the "warts and all" effect of Hi Def that's disconcerting to some. Maybe a flatter, cartoonier look seems more digitally pristine, since the limitations of the source medium are somewhat disguised. It'd be interesting to see how dvd mastered from VHS would play for people with such a preference.

--Jack