TRUE blu-ray?

[perferd]

Question about blu-ray movies???

So I went to blockbuster the other day to check out some blu-ray movies. I saw a bunch of OLD movies that were labeled as blu-ray but the guy told me they are not TRUE blu-ray movies. What exactly does that mean? He said something about them just being upscaled to show in 720p/1080p format (like I know what that means anyways lol). So how do I know if the movie is a TRUE blu-ray or if I should care? BTW I bought Twilight cause I knew the wife would like it and I figured it being so new it would be true blu-ray. Picture looked unreal playing through my PS3 onto my 1080i TV which will be changed out to 1080p soon for free (product exchange, thank God for extended service plans lol)...

[Raunchy™]

Sounds like this guy has no idea what he's talking about. Perhaps he's trying to watch a HD Blu-ray title on his regular TV, and it looks the same, so he probably assumes they all do.

So how do I know if the movie is a TRUE blu-ray or if I should care?

Click here to get movie disc stats ~ that will tell you what actually comes on the disc. Or try the Blu-ray.com website and search for the movie title you want info on, and you will get a very thorough review on both picture and audio quality.

[gruddy]

No such thing as true Blu-Ray.

As long as the movie has Blu-Ray written on it, you'll be fine.

[perferd]

Ahh ok thanks guys.....He had me thinking if a movie was made in 1980 or something and was converted to blu-ray it wouldnt look the same as a 2010 blu-ray movie...

[DarkNemesis]

A 1980 movie does not look as good as a 2010 movie because it was not shot with an HD camera.So he is right about what he said.I have both Terminator 2 and Predator 1 which both look good,but they do not in anyway compare to Spiderman 3,Dark Knight and Ironman.I am watching James Bond License to Kill (1989) right now and last night I watched Casino Royale (2006) and the difference is obvious.

[perferd]

ok ok so I am getting somewhere...How do I know if the movie was shot in HD? Is it on the back or cover or something?

[DarkNemesis]

I am not exactly sure when they starting shooting with HD cameras,but most movies after '02 should all have used them.As time goes on though,the technology progresses as Dark Knight looks superior to Batman begins and Sipderman 3 is the best quality of all 3 movies.

[BigYoSpeck]

A 1980 movie does not look as good as a 2010 movie because it was not shot with an HD camera.So he is right about what he said.I have both Terminator 2 and Predator 1 which both look good,but they do not in anyway compare to Spiderman 3,Dark Knight and Ironman.I am watching James Bond License to Kill (1989) right now and last night I watched Casino Royale (2006) and the difference is obvious.

They would have been shot on film and at a high enough quality to be shown on huge cinema screens. If mastered correctly they should still have enough information to make full hd without any interpolation.

But yes they still won't stand up to a modern film as it's not just the amount of pixels that determine the quality of the imagery and modern cameras and post processing effects are far in advance.

[louhamilton]

They would have been shot on film and at a high enough quality to be shown on huge cinema screens. If mastered correctly they should still have enough information to make full hd without any interpolation.

But yes they still won't stand up to a modern film as it's not just the amount of pixels that determine the quality of the imagery and modern cameras and post processing effects are far in advance.

If a older film movie is in good quality AND transferred correctly, they will look better than any modern movie filmed with an HD camera. Why you ask? Film has no pixel count. It needs to be CONVERTED to digital in order to do this.

You may or may not have heard of a term 2K, 4K, 6K , or 8K transfer. Most HD cameras are 2K (2048 pixels) with a few coming on the market at 4K (4096 pixels). So when a FILM movie (which by the way there are still MANY current movies shot in film :cough: :cough: Dark Knight :cough: :cough, it needs to be processed and transfered to digital.

Since HD is currently 1080 pixels, a 2K transfer is more than enough because it ends up being downsampled to the BD HD standard. However, Baraka was transferred at 8K (8192 pixels). This captures an INCREDIBLE amount of the detail from the original film and is why it has been described as being one of the highest quality BD's out there (I know there are mixed reviews, but a majority of the reputable reviewers feel it is one of the best).

So, what I'm trying to say is that making a blanket statement that "HD cameras produce better movies than old film movies" is not always true. Besides, an old movie with film grain (The Godfather Trilogy and classic James Bond movies are good examples) is far more appealing to me than a new HD movie that is crystal clear. To me, this looks almost fake and less real. But, this is just my opinion.

As to the answer to the OP, Blu-ray is a standard, Just like DVD, VHS, and Betamax. If the case has the Blu-ray logo on it, chances are the movie is a Blu-ray (unless you bought it on the street in DC or NYC ). Buy it, enjoy it, love it!

[perferd]

^Good post thank you...

[R_Mac_1]

Hint: don't listen to Joe Schmo who works at Blockbuster. He has no idea what he's talking about.

[Metfanant]

A 1980 movie does not look as good as a 2010 movie because it was not shot with an HD camera.

nope, they were shot on film...which is actually a higher "resolution" than 1080p....

So he is right about what he said.

negative...he is wrong...

I have both Terminator 2 and Predator 1 which both look good,but they do not in anyway compare to Spiderman 3,Dark Knight and Ironman.I am watching James Bond License to Kill (1989) right now and last night I watched Casino Royale (2006) and the difference is obvious.

has nothing to do with the resolution....

ok ok so I am getting somewhere...How do I know if the movie was shot in HD? Is it on the back or cover or something?

put it this way...just about everything you can imagine was shot on film, or HD digital camers...you will be fine...

If a older film movie is in good quality AND transferred correctly, they will look better than any modern movie filmed with an HD camera. Why you ask? Film has no pixel count. It needs to be CONVERTED to digital in order to do this.

You may or may not have heard of a term 2K, 4K, 6K , or 8K transfer. Most HD cameras are 2K (2048 pixels) with a few coming on the market at 4K (4096 pixels). So when a FILM movie (which by the way there are still MANY current movies shot in film :cough: :cough: Dark Knight :cough: :cough, it needs to be processed and transfered to digital.

Since HD is currently 1080 pixels, a 2K transfer is more than enough because it ends up being downsampled to the BD HD standard. However, Baraka was transferred at 8K (8192 pixels). This captures an INCREDIBLE amount of the detail from the original film and is why it has been described as being one of the highest quality BD's out there (I know there are mixed reviews, but a majority of the reputable reviewers feel it is one of the best).

So, what I'm trying to say is that making a blanket statement that "HD cameras produce better movies than old film movies" is not always true. Besides, an old movie with film grain (The Godfather Trilogy and classic James Bond movies are good examples) is far more appealing to me than a new HD movie that is crystal clear. To me, this looks almost fake and less real. But, this is just my opinion.

As to the answer to the OP, Blu-ray is a standard, Just like DVD, VHS, and Betamax. If the case has the Blu-ray logo on it, chances are the movie is a Blu-ray (unless you bought it on the street in DC or NYC ). Buy it, enjoy it, love it!

i read the OP and was ready to type out a lengthy response...but just read this post by lou...takes care of it...

now you can go back and tell the guy he is an idiot and doesn't know what he is talking about..

[REFLEX]

A 1980 movie does not look as good as a 2010 movie because it was not shot with an HD camera.So he is right about what he said.I have both Terminator 2 and Predator 1 which both look good,but they do not in anyway compare to Spiderman 3,Dark Knight and Ironman.I am watching James Bond License to Kill (1989) right now and last night I watched Casino Royale (2006) and the difference is obvious.

That's such a bogus comparison. "Shooting on a HD Camera" has nothing to do with it. You can blow up something shot on film way bigger than you can 1080p, hence (in most cases) something "Not shot in HD" has MORE resolution than 1080p can ever hope to have. Although it isn't really resolution because film isn't digital and does not have actual resolution, but you get the point.

Things shot in "NOT HD" can be far far better than 1080p.

[BigYoSpeck]

Hint: don't listen to Joe Schmo who works at Blockbuster. He has no idea what he's talking about.

Thats not entirely fair. I know a lad in my local blockbuster who did half a BTEC in media studies at Wigan & Leigh College

[madrox]

half.
he did half...

would you take medical advice from some one who was half a doctor? haha

[BigYoSpeck]

half.
he did half...

would you take medical advice from some one who was half a doctor? haha

Hell no!

I'll stick to wikipedia

[perferd]

LOL thanks...

So in the end if it has an blu-ray label on it I am good to go...Thanks...Now I just need my new free 1080p TV

[R_Mac_1]

If you're really interested in what movies look good, even older films, check out reviews on sites like bluray.com . They have reviews on the movie, the video quality, audio quality, and bonus features.

[louhamilton]

If you're really interested in what movies look good, even older films, check out reviews on sites like bluray.com . They have reviews on the movie, the video quality, audio quality, and bonus features.

Or a thread like this at AVS Forum. Ranks movies as far as PQ goes. there is also one for sound. There should be a link on the first page of the one above.

[badz_ps3]

If you want to see a sick (read - really good) transfer of an older movie... Go buy Blade Runner.. All the "HD camera" nonsense will go away quickly.


What are you waiting for? Go buy it!

[Smiler]

If a older film movie is in good quality AND transferred correctly, they will look better than any modern movie filmed with an HD camera. Why you ask? Film has no pixel count. It needs to be CONVERTED to digital in order to do this.

You may or may not have heard of a term 2K, 4K, 6K , or 8K transfer. Most HD cameras are 2K (2048 pixels) with a few coming on the market at 4K (4096 pixels). So when a FILM movie (which by the way there are still MANY current movies shot in film :cough: :cough: Dark Knight :cough: :cough, it needs to be processed and transfered to digital.

Since HD is currently 1080 pixels, a 2K transfer is more than enough because it ends up being downsampled to the BD HD standard. However, Baraka was transferred at 8K (8192 pixels). This captures an INCREDIBLE amount of the detail from the original film and is why it has been described as being one of the highest quality BD's out there (I know there are mixed reviews, but a majority of the reputable reviewers feel it is one of the best).

So, what I'm trying to say is that making a blanket statement that "HD cameras produce better movies than old film movies" is not always true. Besides, an old movie with film grain (The Godfather Trilogy and classic James Bond movies are good examples) is far more appealing to me than a new HD movie that is crystal clear. To me, this looks almost fake and less real. But, this is just my opinion.

As to the answer to the OP, Blu-ray is a standard, Just like DVD, VHS, and Betamax. If the case has the Blu-ray logo on it, chances are the movie is a Blu-ray (unless you bought it on the street in DC or NYC ). Buy it, enjoy it, love it!

This is pretty much the perfect answer

[mcav]

Please can you go to the rental place and tell this guy from me that he is a ****ing idiot and that idiots are ALWAYS found out to be so.

Seriously - "Not true blu ray"

What a dumb ****!

[loki22]

Other folks did a great job clearing things up. I'll only add that the quality of the master can be an issue with older movies. It's "garbage in -- garbage out." When studios use a master that's in poor shape (film degrades over time) for a Blu-ray transfer, it shows. Newer movies generally don't have that problem because the film hasn't had time to degrade. That said, there are plenty of older movies and even some old movies that are great transfers to Blu-ray.

Of course, that's probably not what the Blockbuster guy was talking about. But I just thought I'd supplement the good info from other posters.

[UberNerD20]

A 1980 movie does not look as good as a 2010 movie because it was not shot with an HD camera.So he is right about what he said.I have both Terminator 2 and Predator 1 which both look good,but they do not in anyway compare to Spiderman 3,Dark Knight and Ironman.I am watching James Bond License to Kill (1989) right now and last night I watched Casino Royale (2006) and the difference is obvious.

that might have somethin to do also with the change in technology and special effects.

[Azu]

A 1980 movie does not look as good as a 2010 movie because it was not shot with an HD camera.So he is right about what he said.I have both Terminator 2 and Predator 1 which both look good,but they do not in anyway compare to Spiderman 3,Dark Knight and Ironman.I am watching James Bond License to Kill (1989) right now and last night I watched Casino Royale (2006) and the difference is obvious.

Uhh.... The non-digital cameras they used 10-20 years ago have better resolution than most HD cameras today, it's certainly better than the 1920x1080p resolution. If an old movie looks bad, they've just screwed the transfer or haven't even used the best quality original material that's on film.

That said, just look at Blade Runner (1982, wasn't it?) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (released in 1968. They both have exceptionally good image quality. I'd almost go as far as saying they look BETTER than any of the movies you listed. Or certainly not worse, at least.