What Blu-ray discs do you consider as "Reference Video Quality" (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

I know that Gulliver's Travels isn't reference quality. I'd like to think most of what Criterion, Sony, and Warner put out is "reference" quality even without prior knowledge of the accuracy. The Godfather is probably the only confirmed one off hand (for obvious reasons).

 

[Vincent_P]

Originally Posted by Patrick McCart

...I'd like to think most of what Criterion, Sony, and Warner put out is "reference" quality even without prior knowledge of the accuracy. The Godfather is probably the only confirmed one off hand (for obvious reasons).

On a certain other website I was castigated for suggesting that THE GODFATHER on Blu-ray looked correct. My crime? I quoted the actual cinematographer of the film, Gordon Willis, who did a Q&A at the screening of the restored version of the film that I attended (said restoration having also been used for the Blu-ray) and said the look of the restoration was "dead on". The person who 'corrected' me on that certain other website suggested in no uncertain terms that I was a fool to believe a man who had a "financial stake" in the film, as opposed to others who were posting negative impressions of the Blu-ray at that certain website. Imagine how stupid I felt, to believe Gordon Willis as opposed to random internet posters regarding the proper visual look of THE GODFATHER!

Vincent

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by Vincent_P
Imagine how stupid I felt, to believe Gordon Willis as opposed to random internet posters regarding the proper visual look of THE GODFATHER!

Egads, man! How could you? ; )

The Godfather looks terrific.

All this talk about reference quality makes me think of a friend of mine who has a nice HT set-up, but inexplicably buys full frame movies and watches them zoomed in (to fill the screen). He does so because he "doesn't like the black bars." To my eye, the picture doesn't look great. But he has a lot of movies and he enjoys them tremendously. So be it.

Another friend bought a widescreen TV some years ago and when I looked at her DVDs, I saw nothing but full screen (3 x4). I asked why she didn't get widescreen, and she said she didn't like the black bars. I said "well, then why buy a widescreen TV if you want full screen DVDs?" She said "Duh, I buy full screen because I want it to FILL the SCREEN!"

Something to keep in mind; while we're demanding reference quality, average consumers (who outnumber us) just want a big picture.

 

[Flemming.K]

Gladiator.

Just kidding

 

[David Deeb]

Originally Posted by Sam Favate ">[/url]

Another friend bought a widescreen TV some years ago and when I looked at her DVDs, I saw nothing but full screen (3 x4). I asked why she didn't get widescreen, and she said she didn't like the black bars. I said "well, then why buy a widescreen TV if you want full screen DVDs?" She said "Duh, I buy full screen because I want it to FILL the SCREEN!"

[/QUOTE]LOL, that's ridiculous.

 

[Nick Martin]

I'm of the mindset that if it looks like film on my television set, meaning grain, occasional specks of dirt (which is actually something I like to see IF it's there, because - and this may sound silly to some - it adds to the illusion of watching film as opposed to video on my television set) if it is as natural a look as can be meaning no obvious signs of filtering (unless it was there intentionally, in a "300" sense of artistic intent) then it's gold to me and worth every penny for the disc.

It doesn't have to be the sharpest thing in the world, and certainly doesn't have to be the most digital looking thing in the world.

I don't know what a "reference" video is supposed to look like, I just know this is what I think of when I hear the term.

With "Braveheart" being the most recent big winner all-around, after seeing parts of the film in the new documentaries on the second disc and then sampling scenes of the film on its own, I'd easily call it reference, as I understand the term.

 

I think everyone's being a bit earnest, when what most people mean by "reference disc," is either 1) What disc do I hold up other blu rays against, to see if they pass muster? or 2) What disc do I put on to show people what high def means.

I understand a similar sentiment has been raised previously, but I'm suggesting that many people have answered that to them "reference disc" means faithfulness to original intent/presentation, when I believe this is just a technique to assuage the demon in us that thinks the most impressive images are the most clear and least filmic. The number of comments to this effect in a thread on "reference discs" suggests to me that many are worried that "reference disc" can not be anything but Pixar, because those look clearest.

I know I'm generalising here, so apologies, but I think my theory is quite probable.

As for my perspective, I agree that reference discs shouldn't be Pixar films,but ones that show how the upgrade from DVD should be. For that reason, I choose movies that looked horrible on DVD, which, for me has to come from the 70's: Bullitt and The Getaway are good examples.

Also The Searchers, not that it looked horrible on DVD, but because the difference is quite profound, and, since I'm so familiar with it, it feels profound to me when I put it on.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Ben Cheshire ">[/url]


I think everyone's being a bit earnest . . .
[/QUOTE]
There are a lot of people here who take this stuff [i]seriously[/i], and that ain't gonna change! [/url]


. . . when what most people mean by "reference disc," is either 1) What disc do I hold up other blu rays against, to see if they pass muster? . . .
[/QUOTE]
You see, I think that's a seductive but false premise. You can't use a single disc to judge others. To take an obvious example: What use would the Blu-ray of [i]WALL*E[/i] be in evaluating the Blu-ray of [i]Grumpy Old Men[/i] (a disc I reviewed for HTF), which has a rough grainy image consistent with the period in which it was made and the intended look of the original film? [i]GOM[/i] is a very fine transfer; "hold it up" against a digitally generated film like [i]WALL*E,[/i] as so many inexperienced reviewers seem to do, and it looks like crap.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by [b]Ben Cheshire[/b] [url=/forum/thread/291595/what-blu-ray-discs-do-you-consider-as-reference-video-quality/30#post_3602684]

 

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

If I want to show someone what hi-def means, I don't show them different films. I show them the same film in both standard resolution and hi-def. That's the only fair comparison. Some people don't see the difference (really); some people see the difference and don't care; some people are fascinated and say, "I want it!"

It takes all kinds.

Yes, but I really think this is the most useful conception of a "reference disc" thread, where the question is not: what is the best looking blu ray you own, which is a separate question, but which blu ray shows the best and most noticeable improvement over the DVD. So, with your example, if you were to show them the SD then the BD, you wouldn't choose something like El Cid or The Fall of the Roman Empire, based on recent reports, or, for me, I wouldn't choose Halloween, because I don't think the imporvement is as shocking; whereas something like The Searchers, which people used to be blown away by on SD, I think is an excellent candidate for using as a reference disc. Whereas something like Baraka, which has never had a SD release to my knowledge, or Planet Earth, which movie fans would not have cared about before HD, is not as helpful I don't think.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Ben Cheshire

_Man_

 

If you're right, then its probably not that helpful to define reference as upgrade-coercion discs. I guess the most fun thing to talk about is what are the best-looking blu rays that make you happy.

 

[Nick Martin]

Originally Posted by Ben Cheshire




Yes, but I really think this is the most useful conception of a "reference disc" thread, where the question is not: what is the best looking blu ray you own, which is a separate question, but which blu ray shows the best and most noticeable improvement over the DVD. So, with your example, if you were to show them the SD then the BD, you wouldn't choose something like El Cid or The Fall of the Roman Empire, based on recent reports, or, for me, I wouldn't choose Halloween, because I don't think the imporvement is as shocking; whereas something like The Searchers, which people used to be blown away by on SD, I think is an excellent candidate for using as a reference disc. Whereas something like Baraka, which has never had a SD release to my knowledge, or Planet Earth, which movie fans would not have cared about before HD, is not as helpful I don't think.

Of course there's a problem when running into releases like "The Dark Knight", which seem to be made to look poor on purpose for DVD, so when you look at the Blu-ray it's a massive improvement. It's s conspiracy theory many share.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin


Of course there's a problem when running into releases like "The Dark Knight", which seem to be made to look poor on purpose for DVD, so when you look at the Blu-ray it's a massive improvement. It's s conspiracy theory many share.

I've not heard that before, but I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin



Of course there's a problem when running into releases like "The Dark Knight", which seem to be made to look poor on purpose for DVD, so when you look at the Blu-ray it's a massive improvement. It's s conspiracy theory many share.

Sounds like a possible conspiracy.

Standard def has been rife with problems. Look at generic facts. A standard definition film of 2 1/2 hours in length.

In order to fit on a single disc, the film must be grain reduced to give it a moderately homogenized look and then heavily compressed to fit. Any obtrusive grain turns to video noise, blacks become murky. Overall resolution is reduced.

There is a way around the problem.

It's called Blu-ray.

 

[Ray H]

I don't know if it's a conspiracy, but since around the time the HD formats took off, many of Warner's new release titles (not their catalogue releases) have looked poor on DVD. Just loads of compression artifacts consistent enough across titles that it feels like they must be doing something wrong. Titles I've noticed have been Superman Returns, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (though the other catalogue Superman movies looked great), Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Dark Knight, and The Departed. While most of these are lengthy movies, I don't think it's much of an excuse. These high profile titles have sections of such low quality that it's hard to believe they were released by a major studio. Thank God for Blu-ray.

 

[Nick Martin]

I'm sure there are times when you buy the same title on both formats. I did for The Dark Knight, because I wanted a) a version I could play on anything and b) I wanted the bonus disc which has most of the IMAX scenes in their original AR.

Unfortunately, those IMAX scenes on the bonus disc look the same as the film does on its own disc, and anyone who has the DVD version knows that's a big letdown.

 

Originally Posted by Ray H

I don't know if it's a conspiracy, but since around the time the HD formats took off, many of Warner's new release titles (not their catalogue releases) have looked poor on DVD. Just loads of compression artifacts consistent enough across titles that it feels like they must be doing something wrong. ... Thank God for Blu-ray.

Tying this post in with Robert's comments, just a layman speculating here, but is it possible that the problem is that studios only do one master; and now they concentrate on Blu Ray, which means they don't remove as much grain, because Blu can handle it, but according to Robert, DVD can't, so that grain shows up as video noise and other artifacts?

This is something now that I worry about with Lawrence of Arabia, one of my most treasured DVDs; is it true, Robert, that if they put your Lawrence restoration on Blu Ray, without going back to the source material, it would show up as quite DNR'd and EE'd, because DVD couldn't handle hardly any grain at all? (Apologies if this question is offensive to you, but its something I, and hopefully others, are worrying about with one of their favourite movies coming to Blu Ray soon).

 

[Ray_R]

I consider GHOSTBUSTERS to be reference material on ze Blu-ray. Hopefully GHOSTBUSTERS 2 will be also.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Originally Posted by EricW


please describe the what was wrong with the picture and not the bitrate...

Lack of detail, deblocking filter softness, blocking. 15 Mbit/s VC1. Some is much higher, and some is much lower. Shot on Genesis, a camera with full 1080p resolution. What's wrong with the picture? It could be more faithful to the master it came from.

 

[Ray H]

Originally Posted by Ben Cheshire

Tying this post in with Robert's comments, just a layman speculating here, but is it possible that the problem is that studios only do one master; and now they concentrate on Blu Ray, which means they don't remove as much grain, because Blu can handle it, but according to Robert, DVD can't, so that grain shows up as video noise and other artifacts?

This could very well be the case. If I were still a DVD buyer I'd certainly be angry that DVD is being treated as an afterthought and is being put out nowadays with no regard for quality.