Lightning Count
Member
I am making a list of these will buy some of them.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Best Blu Ray transfers?
- Thread starter Lightning Count
- Start date
AVATAR is still tops.
2001 actually looks kinda blurry and lacking in fine detail, it's not a quality transfer by today's standards. It deserves better. Look at the blu-rays of Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia to see what a 65mm transfer should actually look like.
2001 actually looks kinda blurry and lacking in fine detail, it's not a quality transfer by today's standards. It deserves better. Look at the blu-rays of Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia to see what a 65mm transfer should actually look like.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
BARAKA and SAMSARA, as both were transferred from 8K scans of the 65mm prints.
Death Metalist
Member
NealMcCauley
Member
Braveheart looks great. You can see the small cracks in the facepaint.
I like Minority Report's too, though I'll never understand why Spielberg chose to remove the blue tint for some scenes.
I like Minority Report's too, though I'll never understand why Spielberg chose to remove the blue tint for some scenes.
Avatar is not the best Blu-Ray you can get.
Avatar (2009)
Either I'm missing something, or the PQ of this disc is slightly worse than what people say. I'm looking at a two-disc release exclusively (?) from Walmart. It was $10 for the Blu-Ray and DVD together, with no special features. When ripped to MKV, uncompressed with all audio tracks, it is 39.6 GB. Is this in line with other releases of the standard edition, or is the file size smaller? If it's smaller, I'll drop my complaint.
Here is the bitrate:
28 Mbps average
53 Mbps peak
Avatar, in static or slow-moving scenes, looks awesome. If the movie was just scenes of Na'vi talking around fires and in lush forests, it would deserve its high spot on the tier list.
But I keep noticing that in scenes of fast motion, either the bitrate, compression algorithm, or source material is faulty.
Each image links to the full-size, uncompressed version.
This looks like a blurry mess. I know it's supposed to emulate the blur that most films have, but something about it looks off. Everything to the right of the helicopter looks bit-starved, like detail is being lost to compression.
The stars in the bottom-right are just closely-packed enough to make the image tough to compress.
The leaves of the tree at the top don't blend well with the background. This is another spot I think is ruined by compression. The bush on the right-middle edge of the image lack definition. It just joins the background in a kind of mush. Look above it and you see a small plant growth off the right side of the tree trunk. That's an honest-to-god compression artifact. It barely looks like anything.
Break the above image into a 3x3 grid of rectangles, and the bottom-right rectangle looks like another area marred by poor compression.
It's clearly trying to look like film - but does it? If you freeze-frame a high-movement shot of Terminator 2, does it look like this?
Here are some shots of motion blur in Lawrence of Arabia. The blur is consistent in that film, and it's not heavily compressed. In Avatar it doesn't look as good. In Ratatouille (obviously an animated film), they handle blur differently, and better, in my opinion.
Look at the left leg of the Na'vi in the middle of the shot, closest to the camera. Look at the plant that their leg is near. It doesn't look like film blur. It looks like film blur, with compression added.
I don't know if the existing ranking reflects what I see as compression artifacts / source ugliness. If Avatar was available in a 100 GB version, or maybe a 75 GB version, my complaints might disappear. But as it is, it doesn't look like 40 GB was enough to show the world of Avatar without some compromises being made.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
Grabbing Ben-Hur because of this thread.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Very true. Get Zodiac, y'all! One of my favorite prized posessions.
I read somewhere that the Blu-ray master comes from a, now aged, scan of a 35mm interpositive as the negative is in bad shape. There are some notable photographic artefacts in the Dawn of Man sequence that were not visible at the 70mm screening I went to.
It was also one of the early Warner titles which was released on both Blu-ray and HD-DVD. The encode was, ironically given Blu-ray's higher capacity, hindered by a 25GB target size to fit on a single layer Blu-ray and at a lower bit rate (using a now outdated codec) due to HD-DVD's lower bandwidth. So in that respect we got a disc complying to the worst aspects of each format.
It looks pretty good all things considered but it could, and should, look spectacular.
That is a really high bitrate for a Blu-ray. It spikes at or near the limit and hovers at a really repectable 28mbps for most of the film.
In any case these compression codecs are designed to be transparent to the master when viewed in motion. Looking a screencaps like this means you are analysing a frame that you would normally only see for 1/24th of a second. The artefacts you note, which you really have to look for, would be invisible during normal viewing.
As to your thoughtful and well expressed motion blur observations: you can't really compare shots from different films, or even different shots within the same film, like that. So much affects how it appears, not least the speed the camera is moving in relation to the object it is photographing. Add to that shutter speed, lens choice (or virtual lens choice for CG shots) depth of field, point of focus and distance from the camera and it makes for an incredibly complex effect. I read somewhere it is one of the most computationally expensive elements to accurately render in VFX work. Maybe your issues are with the VFX work rather than the compression?
For 24fps film motion blur is necessary to maintain the perception of smooth motion. This is as true for CG animation as it is for normal motion photography. Without it you get an artefact called strobing which is massively noticeable and it can make live action photography look like bad stop motion animation. It is one of the reasons sport, especially fast moving sport, is almost always broadcast at high frame rates.
For all its flaws as a film, Avatar on Blu-ray is really top tier demo material.
Mr. Holmes is another recent film that I thought looked lovely on BD.
It seems I'm being prevented from posting screenshots here (?)... but there is a selection here http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mr-Holmes-Blu-ray/130064/#Screenshots
A nice film to watch Ian McKellen doing his thing.
It seems I'm being prevented from posting screenshots here (?)... but there is a selection here http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mr-Holmes-Blu-ray/130064/#Screenshots
A nice film to watch Ian McKellen doing his thing.
Backfoggen
Banned
Yes, 2001 could definitely look better. Praying for a 4k blu-ray of that movie.
Feel free to stop with the "For a 40/50/60 year old film" thing. These movies were shot on film, which means they're shot in higher resolution than most digital video has been until fairly recently. The only thing preventing a half-century old movie from looking as good or better than one shot in 2016 is preservation and cinematography.
Chaotic-Strike
Banned
Halloween 35th Anniversary Edition
Brand new transfer that was overseen by the original cinematographer and it shows.
Brand new transfer that was overseen by the original cinematographer and it shows.
I feel like my copy only looks marginally better than a DVD but reviews online seem to also suggest it looks amazing. Are there different versions or something? Based on the UPC code this is what I have. I guess I should rewatch it soon to see if I'm just being crazy.
J
Jotamide
Unconfirmed Member
Lawrence of Arabia looks amazing. It's also one of the greatest films of all-time in case you somehow never saw it.
I saw this for the first time last year and was shocked at how good it looks
While the transfer is quite impressive, I always thought that the audio was very uneven. Loud at times and quit at others, even during the same conversation. Also, the scene where
Ben Hur's sister drops the tile on the Roman governor
This is jaw-dropping. Any chances of these 2 movies being brought over?
I am REALLY looking forward to watch these this year. I submitted an application for my library to add them to the collection.
As for other suggestions to this thread, most animation films look fantastic in BD when properly handled. Also, Criterion does fantastic jobs. Apparently Mulholland Dr by David Lynch is an immaculate transfer.
Beer Monkey
Member
Good thread, enjoying the discussion. This will be driving some new purchases from me.
I saw a 70mm print of 2001 around 1995 on a curved Cinerama screen. The Blu-Ray is decent but the film needs a good restoration from the best available elements.
Not true. Criterion fucks up regularly and Mulholland Drive is OK.
I saw a 70mm print of 2001 around 1995 on a curved Cinerama screen. The Blu-Ray is decent but the film needs a good restoration from the best available elements.
Not true. Criterion fucks up regularly and Mulholland Drive is OK.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
I just went to see a theatrical showing of 2001, and when the film starts, the FBI warning popped up. So yeah, they were just projecting the blu ray, which felt like a serious rip off. But it still looked very good.
It was shot on a format called Techniscope which had half the negative area of other 35mm ultra wide formats (Cinemascope, Panavision etc) thus half the resolution.
It'll never look as glossy as many other films without significant digital sharpening and degraining. That almost always looks horrible, and would take away from the feel of the movie. I am really happy with the Blu-ray.
MR and Private Ryan look better than ever on blu. I think the bleach bypass process never looked right on DVD and the print you're seeing now is how both films were always meant to look
I have to disagree somewhat (if nothing else for me mentioning the year it was shot in my post earlier). When talking about what constitutes the best blu ray transfer I tend to find a big budget Hollywood film shot on digital getting a great blu ray a less impressive feat than a decades old film getting a great release.
As you do mention, preservation (and restoration) plays a much larger role for older films, and it's far, far, far from every older film getting the love and attention it deserves. I think it's slightly hand-waving to say that the "only thing" preventing them from looking good is preservation as if it's an easy process. Especially considering the older the film is, the more damaged the film stock tends to be, even when stored well (and even big Hollywood films aren't always stored properly). So I think it is a fair thing to say that "for a X year old film it looks great", since I don't think it implies things about resolution or befuddlement that old films can look good, but more of an admiration of the work put into the restoration of the film.
J
Jotamide
Unconfirmed Member
I only own Paris, Texas from them and it's quite stunning. I've also seen The Great Dictator from them and found it equally good.
Fancy Clown
Member
Criterion is usually very good. They are highly reliable I think and unless you're really sensitive to bitrate and compression they look stunning. They are particularly good at getting really good contrast values. They sometimes sacrifice visual quality in order to fit all the extras on the same disc as the film.
My favorites are Alien, Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, pretty much any Pixar movie and last but not least Zodiac. It's been mentioned a few times, but I agree that it looks absolutely spectacular. It's also my favorite Fincher movie so I love rewatching it on blu.
DoctorFling
Member
Just ordered Fellowship of the Ring extended Blu-ray based on this thread. Would have bought the trilogy for a reasonable price, but it's going for 150 pounds as opposed to buying them separately for around 20. :/
uncelestial
Member
See a lot of recently made movies that probably had digital masters to begin with and we're never "transferred," right? Great looking discs, but making a great home release out of film negatives is a different beast.
| Praxis |
Banned
I recently did this. I bet you had trouble finding The Two Towers extended edition? I had to order mine from Australia.
Dahellisdat
Member
Cozmogramma
Member
Is it worth getting the theatrical versions of LotR? I have the EE-box set but it would be nice to own and watch the originals as well. Haven't seen those in ten years.
That's interesting. You mean where the matte paintings have a sort of crumpled paper effect to them?
Well that's interesting, although I can't say I've noticed much difference in how Avatar handles fast motion sequences compared to any other movie.
Fancy Clown
Member
Yeah you can see weird triangular shapes in them
Livingskeletons
If I pulled that off, would you die?
Casino Royale
Watchmen
Aliens (Cameron personally oversaw the transfer)
Watchmen
Aliens (Cameron personally oversaw the transfer)
sensui-tomo
Member
That sounds about right, But the quality gap is tremendous and worth it. There is a youtube video (lol talking about quality and i say that) that still shows a world of difference between the openings.
look at the original at around 0.58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LucBfR1w6Y )
and the BD at the same time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AJA82rTJmM )
I'm not aware of how the Remastered DVDs look though (iirc funimation owns the rights to the series in the usa )
DoctorFling
Member
Yeah, haven't been able to order it yet. Strange that particular one is sold out when the other two are both well in stock.
They didn't use matte paintings, they used front projected large format plate photography. The screen they projected onto was covered in a highly reflective material which was torn into small pieces and stuck to it. They did this to get around the washed out look traditional rear projection has. It is a technique used, in a refined form, for the Superman films a decade later. The edges of the pieces which made up the screen are visible for some reason and that is what causes the artefacts on the Blu-ray
When I saw the 70mm print the BFI has in its archive, which was struck under Kubrick's personal supervision, projected I paid special attention to that sequence looking for these artefacts. They just weren't there.
kidtamagotchi
Member
Of the Blu-Rays I own, Man of Steel looks incredible! Barely got a Blu-Ray player last month, so I'm researching which movies have the best transfers. Really disappointing to find out Jackie Chan/Sammo Hung/Yuen Biao's 80s Hong Kong films don't have great transfers. Anyways, here are the Blu-Rays I think have great picture quality:
Ninja -low budget movie, but wow! This was the first Blu-Ray I ever watched, so it might not actually be that great.
An Empress and the Warriors
Seven Swords
Interstellar - Great picture, but the sound was weird, the dialogue is very low, but the sound effects are VERY loud. I have to put subtitles on to have everything at an acceptable level.
The Vanishing - Criterion release. Looks amazing!
The Dark Knight Rises - Of the 3 Nolan movies, this one has the most consistent PQ for me. Batman Begins only looks a little better than the DVD. The Dark Knight, something looks off during the non-IMAX scenes. The IMAX scenes look great, though.
Kiss of the Dragon - Picture quality is great, except there are some flaws in the actual film used for the transfer.
Ninja -low budget movie, but wow! This was the first Blu-Ray I ever watched, so it might not actually be that great.
An Empress and the Warriors
Seven Swords
Interstellar - Great picture, but the sound was weird, the dialogue is very low, but the sound effects are VERY loud. I have to put subtitles on to have everything at an acceptable level.
The Vanishing - Criterion release. Looks amazing!
The Dark Knight Rises - Of the 3 Nolan movies, this one has the most consistent PQ for me. Batman Begins only looks a little better than the DVD. The Dark Knight, something looks off during the non-IMAX scenes. The IMAX scenes look great, though.
Kiss of the Dragon - Picture quality is great, except there are some flaws in the actual film used for the transfer.
Rodney McKay
Member
I can't speak to the video quality of the theatrical LOTR movies on Bluray, but I'm actually planning on getting them someday even though I have the extended edition box set. I also saw them at a Target once for like $10 or under for each of them.
Personally I just didn't enjoy the the EE versions of the movies as much as the theatrical versions. There are definitely some good scenes added here and there, but they often feel a little rough (like they were a first take or something) or they feel totally unnecessary (a lot of the added Gimli comedy scenes) and the extended run times hurt the flow of the movies IMO. I love all the behind the scenes stuff included with the EE and commentaries, which is why I wanted the EE box set.
I just remember the theatrical versions being a lot tighter, which is saying something because of how long the movies are even before getting extended, haha.
Similar threads
- Poll