Is everything (supposed to be) better on Blu-ray?
Comments
-
Not all BR players are created equal, I've never been a Samsung fan, at all. Have you hooked up any Oppo,Panny or Pioneer players for comparison? I have found that a plain old,(cheap) up converting DVD player will sometimes play a non-BR DVD much better than my BR deck (not cheap) does. Go figure.
-
Also check its streaming the audio right. I discovered after a firmware update my blu-ray player was not bitstreaming the audio to the AVR, but decoding it and sending it in STEREO :eek:.
I quick setting change and it was much much better."....not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963) -
BR looks good to me. Subjective, of course.
-
The current state of upconversion is really hurting BD sales and a couple of industry analysts reports have noted that. I have a couple of Cambridge Audio DVD/BDP players that have some of the best upconversion available (and yes, better than the Oppo players which I've been able to do direct comparison with) and in most cases there's just so marginal of a difference between a movie previously released on DVD and a newer release on BD that if the audio isn't significantly improved you should just buy the $7.99 DVD and save some money. Put me in the not-so-impressed with BD camp.
The best use for BD is for well-filmed and recorded concerts. Second best use is for movies that were filmed and recorded for BD release. Older movies, just leave them alone unless they are actually going to invest the money to make the BD version have significantly better PQ and SQ.DKG999
HT System: LSi9, LSiCx2, LSiFX, LSi7, SVS 20-39 PC+, B&K 507.s2 AVR, B&K Ref 125.2, Tripplite LCR-2400, Cambridge 650BD, Signal Cable PC/SC, BJC IC, Samsung 55" LED
Music System: Magnepan 1.6QR, SVS SB12+, ARC pre, Parasound HCA1500 vertically bi-amped, Jolida CDP, Pro-Ject RM5.1SE TT, Pro-Ject TubeBox SE phono pre, SBT, PS Audio DLIII DAC -
I'm very selective about what I buy on BluRay, there are some DVD,s that I have upgraded to BluRay most are Disney movies and well worth it IMO!!
-
Not all BR players are created equal, I've never been a Samsung fan, at all. Have you hooked up any Oppo,Panny or Pioneer players for comparison? I have found that a plain old,(cheap) up converting DVD player will sometimes play a non-BR DVD much better than my BR deck (not cheap) does. Go figure.
No, I haven't, and really don't have much interest in it. The flip side, is that while BR was the 'gift', we've spun only a few through it - all we do is stream Netflix - that ended up being the real 'gift'. I hardly even flip on cable anymore, short of a UFC fight. We've got the Netflix bug BAD.Check your lips at the door woman. Shake your hips like battleships. Yeah, all the white girls trip when I sing at Sunday service. -
Older movies, just leave them alone unless they are actually going to invest the money to make the BD version have significantly better PQ and SQ.
The key here is in the transfer process and how much the studio was willing to spend on remastering and not botching it up in the process. I own Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz and The Sound of Music and these are phenomenal BDs and I think everyone would agree these are "old" movies. I really don't think I can say that I had ever truly seen these movies before, despite having seen them all scores of times. These BDs are that good, both PQ and SQ.
I actually own many more HD DVDs and for the most part those titles that were duplicated with BD either enjoyed or suffered the same treatment (with some exceptions) and the quality varies from "wow" to "meh". You really have to look at the reviews as others have noted, as there are some special edition DVDs that received better treatment and are superior to the BD. -
One last thing. A numbers game...480p vs 1080p...a jump for sure...now look ay audio...the highest data transfer possible for DTS DVD audio was 1.5mbps. Blu Ray DTS HD has the potential for over 21mbps. Most blu rays have an average as high as 6mbps currently. The highest Ive seen was Akira with 24/192 information spiking too 12mbps. The audio has the biggest potentIal impact on an improved movie experience. Just look at the numbers.
-
The amount of data with DTS-MA or TrueHD is wholly irrelevant (i.e. 12mbps, 6mbps, etc.). What matters is that these are lossless codecs, whereas Dolby Digital and DTS on DVD are lossy, therefore heavily dependent on the amount of data because the more room the track has on the disc, the less they have to throw away using perceptual coding. The lossless codecs are just that - lossless. All the amount of data tells you in that case is how much the codec was able to compress that data into (the same way compressing a file on your computer won't tell you anything about the original file other than the compression ratio). Then the question becomes whether they were done in 16-bit or 24-bit (though either are vastly better than lossy DD or DTS). The real question, now that these codecs are lossless, is what master they used to create the tracks.
For instance, Master And Commander, IMHO, sounds better on DVD... because when they mastered the track for Blu-ray, they filtered the LFE channel at 25Hz. The rest of the channels are vastly improved in detail and clarity, but that deep menacing LFE of the cannon fire simply isn't there like it was on the DVD (and presumably in the theater).
So whether for audio or video, Blu-ray does allow them the space to present these films the best way possible. Whether they do that or not is up to the individual companies... and for an old catalog release that isn't expected to sell a huge amount, you can bet they're not going to spend a lot of money on remastering it for HD. Odds are that they'll just do a half-assed scan of an existing print, DNR the hell out of it and push it out the door. But occasionally, you have those marquee titles that are given some love (like the ones DocCasualty mentioned), and they end up looking absolutely stunning.Equipment list:
Onkyo TX-NR3010 9.2 AVR
Emotiva XPA-3 amp
Polk RTi70 mains, CSi40 center, RTi38 surrounds, RTi28 rears and heights
SVS 20-39CS+ subwoofer powered by Crown XLS1500
Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player
DarbeeVision DVP5000 video processor
Epson 8500UB 1080p projector
Elite Screens Sable 120" CineWhite screen -
kuntasensei,
Transmission is based on word length. I would suggest looking
More into it.........DVD is horrid. End of story. If you want want dynamic compression graphs showing you the difference I'll post them. Regardless transmission speed is important. -
I agree that DVD is horrid... but you can't compare lossless to lossy codecs in any meaningful way, nor can you compare DTS 1.5mb to DTS-MA at all because they are an entirely different codec - bitrate be damned. You can't even compare DTS 1.5mb to DD 640k (the max output of the two lossy codecs), because they use different methods of perceptual coding.
As far as Blu-ray vs. DVD goes, even a lossy-encoded Blu-ray will be superior because they typically let it use the max available bitrate due to the extra space. Mission Impossible 3 was a good example - it had a 640k DD track on Blu-ray, which sounded better than the DVD's track but still wasn't as good as a lossless track would have been, even at 16-bit/44k redbook standards of audio. Fortunately, most lossless tracks have been at 24-bit/48k thus far, with a few exceptions (and wholly dependent on the master itself - very little mastering is done at 24/96, much less 24/192). Regardless, Dolby pretty much says it for me in their TrueHD FAQ:When evaluating lossless audio, what is the significance of higher
or lower bit rates for the same signal?
Since lossless audio by definition always reproduces the original audio with
bit-for-bit accuracy, it’s actually an advantage to be able to deliver lossless
audio at the most efficient or lowest rate possible.
All that said, as the saying goes, you can't polish a ****. They're not going to take an old pre-Batman Returns catalog title and be able to make it sound as dynamic as a modern digital track. They have done some amazing work on restoring those old tracks as much as possible, but again... totally depends on how much care is put into it. Something like Young Guns isn't getting much love, whereas Gone With The Wind was painstakingly mastered for Blu-ray.Equipment list:
Onkyo TX-NR3010 9.2 AVR
Emotiva XPA-3 amp
Polk RTi70 mains, CSi40 center, RTi38 surrounds, RTi28 rears and heights
SVS 20-39CS+ subwoofer powered by Crown XLS1500
Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player
DarbeeVision DVP5000 video processor
Epson 8500UB 1080p projector
Elite Screens Sable 120" CineWhite screen -
kuntasensei wrote: »All that said, as the saying goes, you can't polish a ****. They're not going to take an old pre-Batman Returns catalog title and be able to make it sound as dynamic as a modern digital track.
While I agree 100% that it's the original audio track quality that gets faithfully reproduced by lossless, so a high bit-rate will do nothing for a ****, old titles CAN sound amazing if remastered properly. The above mentioned Akira is a prime example. It was made back in 1988 and from the opening deep purcussion beats of the title sequence onward, the quality of the 192Khz/24-bit lossless track is obvious, even in stereo (Took some work to get it to play the 192Khz in surround, a lot of playback equipment can't handle the rate or can only handle it once converted to PCM.) As mentioned many times, studios usually cheap out on remastering old titles, but that shouldn't be confused with an inability for older titles to look and sound just as amazing as newer digital ones. Also depends on how much of the original source materials are still around and usable for a proper restoration. Many of the original 'elements' may not exist anymore. -
And, I should add that ironically, it's the digitally shot movies that are 'locked' to a certain resolution. If and when we move to a dramatically higher HD standard, it's these digital movies that will have to be 'upconverted' with a loss in quality. Movies shot on analog film are actually all HD to begin with. Imagine how much resolution an HD image must have to look good on an 80-100 inch home screen. Then imagine how much resolution and quality it would have to have to look good on your mega size movie theater screen. But of course, older films have all those scratches and dirt (not to be confused with grain, which is often something directors want) that have to be cleaned up sometimes being overly 'scrubbed'.
A good audiophile comparison is analog vinyl. It can often surpass cds in sound resolution, but then you get the pops and hisses. In cleaning up the pops and hisses, you may scrub away much of the extra resolution of the original recording if it isn't done properly. Also, many of these catalog transfers aren't even from the original elements, but are transfered from previously archived digital versions. And although they are HD in file size, they were never meant to represent the finest the old movie could look or sound if taken all the way back to the original film elements and restored. -
And, I should add that ironically, it's the digitally shot movies that are 'locked' to a certain resolution. If and when we move to a dramatically higher HD standard, it's these digital movies that will have to be 'upconverted' with a loss in quality. Movies shot on analog film are actually all HD to begin with. Imagine how much resolution an HD image must have to look good on an 80-100 inch home screen. Then imagine how much resolution and quality it would have to have to look good on your mega size movie theater screen. But of course, older films have all those scratches and dirt (not to be confused with grain, which is often something directors want) that have to be cleaned up sometimes being overly 'scrubbed'.
A good audiophile comparison is analog vinyl. It can often surpass cds in sound resolution, but then you get the pops and hisses. In cleaning up the pops and hisses, you may scrub away much of the extra resolution of the original recording if it isn't done properly. Also, many of these catalog transfers aren't even from the original elements, but are transfered from previously archived digital versions. And although they are HD in file size, they were never meant to represent the finest the old movie could look or sound if taken all the way back to the original film elements and restored.
(if i'm reading this right) you're talking about Vinyl to cd and br to some new format as if they just grab a BR off the shelf and upconvert it for a new format...
I would imagine most studios are using master recordings, and they probably aren't recorded at 1920x1080. The movie theaters don't project 1920x1080, more like 4k.. though I have read that smoetimes 4k is downconverted for editing, then upconverted again (seems stupid)
someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 4k come close to film res? -
cokewithvanilla wrote: »(if i'm reading this right) you're talking about Vinyl to cd and br to some new format as if they just grab a BR off the shelf and upconvert it for a new format...
I would imagine most studios are using master recordings, and they probably aren't recorded at 1920x1080. The movie theaters don't project 1920x1080, more like 4k.. though I have read that smoetimes 4k is downconverted for editing, then upconverted again (seems stupid)
someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 4k come close to film res?
I'm using the vinyl example just to show that analog can have advantages over digital because of how digital must pick and choose what it records and throws out when converting to ones and zeros. Not saying that's how a CD is made coming from a vinyl record.
And many of those digital 4k archival masters of catalog titles may have been good enough for downconverting to a DVD but look horrible if they're just dumped to blu-ray. The original film elements are a much better place to start than an archived 4k master of an older title. Regardless of the potential resolution of a 4k master, if you've just archived an unrestored copy, it's garbage in garbage out. And digitally shot movies are sometimes filmed with a variety of different cameras and resolutions, although the highest resolutions approach film, IIRC. -
While I agree 100% that it's the original audio track quality that gets faithfully reproduced by lossless, so a high bit-rate will do nothing for a ****, old titles CAN sound amazing if remastered properly. The above mentioned Akira is a prime example. It was made back in 1988 and from the opening deep purcussion beats of the title sequence onward, the quality of the 192Khz/24-bit lossless track is obvious, even in stereo (Took some work to get it to play the 192Khz in surround, a lot of playback equipment can't handle the rate or can only handle it once converted to PCM.) As mentioned many times, studios usually cheap out on remastering old titles, but that shouldn't be confused with an inability for older titles to look and sound just as amazing as newer digital ones. Also depends on how much of the original source materials are still around and usable for a proper restoration. Many of the original 'elements' may not exist anymore.
Well, in the case of Akira, the effects and dialogue stems were all still relatively low quality. Where the advantage was in doing a 24/192 track was with the score, since they still had the original analog master to work from. Compare that to a movie like Young Guns. Do you really think anyone has the master laying around for that? And even if they did, do you think they'd spend the money to do a remastering for a very small number of people with super-tweeters in their systems? Not likely.
For that matter, how many people do you think have systems that can fully reproduce a 24-bit/48k audio track in their homes, outside of us crazy HT people?Equipment list:
Onkyo TX-NR3010 9.2 AVR
Emotiva XPA-3 amp
Polk RTi70 mains, CSi40 center, RTi38 surrounds, RTi28 rears and heights
SVS 20-39CS+ subwoofer powered by Crown XLS1500
Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player
DarbeeVision DVP5000 video processor
Epson 8500UB 1080p projector
Elite Screens Sable 120" CineWhite screen -
kuntasensei wrote: »Well, in the case of Akira, the effects and dialogue stems were all still relatively low quality. Where the advantage was in doing a 24/192 track was with the score, since they still had the original analog master to work from. Compare that to a movie like Young Guns. Do you really think anyone has the master laying around for that? And even if they did, do you think they'd spend the money to do a remastering for a very small number of people with super-tweeters in their systems? Not likely.
For that matter, how many people do you think have systems that can fully reproduce a 24-bit/48k audio track in their homes, outside of us crazy HT people?
Like I said, if the original materials exist (many don't) and studios spend the time and money (many won't), it's possible to make an older title look and sound much like a modern release. The Akira soundtrack certainly puts many recent blu-ray releases to shame even if the movies came out only in the past year.
Do I think they'll be releasing many restorations at this level? Not likely. They don't even release new first tier blu-ray movies with 24/192. But it doesn't mean people can't find some higher quality catalog titles if they're looking for a quality picture and audio.
