Blu-ray News and Deals

[filmmusic 1,825]

Screenshots from Spielberg's DUEL!

Looking great!!

http://www.mubis.es/titulos/el-diablo-sobre-ruedas-blu-ray/capturas-blu-ray

[A24 4,331]

It doesn't look much better then the DVD, IMO. It's extremely grainy.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It doesn't look much better then the DVD, IMO. It's extremely grainy.

Film grain should be smudged out to make it look more digital! We live in a digital world now!

[DreamTheater 131]

Tell that to the unfortunate people that bought Predator on blu, grain had been effectively removed and the image was clean. It was so clean actually that it got one of the worst reviews for picture quality on blu-ray.com

Natural grain is good, I say.

[filmmusic 1,825]

It doesn't look much better then the DVD, IMO. It's extremely grainy.

Alex grain is part of a film, and should be preserved like this at all times!

Any attempt to remove it (DNR), results to loss of detail and should be avoided at all costs!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It depends

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm buying that and can't wait to watch it all done up nice and pristine. My TV has fantastic wizardry when processing grain.

[A24 4,331]

Look at the pics, it's all grain. To my knowledge, Duel was shot in full frame for TV and I think they optically changed it to 1.85:1 for the Blu-ray release, which would explain in a blow-up of the grain. Also, the reds are less washed out on the DVD (although it varies from shot to shot).

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Really? That would suck

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm in work at the moment and can't look but I'm going to compare later.

[Barnald 365]

Hopefully we don't have to wait too long for an individual release

[filmmusic 1,825]

Look at the pics, it's all grain. To my knowledge, Duel was shot in full frame for TV and I think they optically changed it to 1.85:1 for the Blu-ray release, which would explain in a blow-up of the grain. Also, the reds are less washed out on the DVD (although it varies from shot to shot).

Alex

First of all:

1) aspect ratio has nothing to do with grain.

The widescreen 1.85:1 is cropped from the 4:3 full frame, so the grain is the same.

But, i would like for them to include the full frame too. Anyway.

2) Duel was shot on 35mm, which means it has grain.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Point 1 is wrong.

By cropping the picture to turn a 4:3 image to 16:9, you essentially magnify the remaining image. Meaning you increase the size of the grain.

[filmmusic 1,825]

Point 1 is wrong.

By cropping the picture to turn a 4:3 image to 16:9, you essentially magnify the remaining image. Meaning you increase the size of the grain.

ok,maybe you're right on this. But the difference isn't so substantial.

Anyway, I wanted to show Alex the difference between grain and DNR.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=4548&disc2=1869&cap1=42330&cap2=17483&art=full&image=7&hd_multiID=166&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

It's clearly evident from this, that DNR results in a poor quality image (of course here in this Bluray there are other problems too with encoding and stuff).

But look what detail has the grainy image.

You can read the number on the helicopter!

And if that doesn't convince you, maybe this?

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=3896&disc2=3895&cap1=36159&cap2=36143&art=full&image=0&hd_multiID=1613&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=3896&disc2=3895&cap1=36165&cap2=36149&art=full&image=6&hd_multiID=1613&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Actually with a 4:3 to 16:9 conversion you do lose quite a lot of the original picture. And the magnification used to now fill a widescreen TV is quite substantial.

If you consider the fact that for a TV movie they probably didnt use the highest quality, fine grail film stock , the resulting image can look quite bad.

Was Spielberg involved with this at all? I doubt he would have allowed for this.

[A24 4,331]

I know film has grain, filmmusic, but the pics of Duel show too much grain. Maybe they also used a copy which would double the amount of grain. Another problem with cropping 1.33 to 1.85 is that we probably loose a little from the top and bottom of the image (like with Barry Lyndon).

The grain is much finer on the DVD, Steef. The DVD actually looks pretty good, considering the film's age.

[filmmusic 1,825]

I know film has grain, filmmusic, but the pics of Duel show too much grain. Maybe they also used a copy which would double the amount of grain. Another problem with cropping 1.33 to 1.85 is that we probably loose a little from the top and bottom of the image (like with Barry Lyndon).

The grain is much finer on the DVD, Steef. The DVD actually looks pretty good, considering the film's age.

It doesn't look too much to me. If only you saw other movies with much more grain..

By the way, the grain is "finer" on the DVD, because the DVD is blurry comparing to the Bluray, that's why the grain is blurred so it seems like it's "finer" or that it isn't there..

here's another example that shows how blurry is a DVD:

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=878&disc2=877&cap1=8602&cap2=8592&art=full&image=6&hd_multiID=960&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

Looking at the DVD you don't realise that his tie has actually white dots (it seems like it's dark grey), only to see it in the clear (and grainy) Bluray.

I believe you can notice too that the grain is blurred on the DVD, but in that way, detail is lost!

Look also how Cary Grant's face looks waxy on the DVD.

Anyway, eveyrone and every specialist agrees, that preserving the grain is the right approach to a film restoration, and DNR is wrong.

It's not just a personal opinion of mine..

DNRed and grain-free BLurays of (otherwise grainy) films, take the lowest ratings now in reviews and it's an approach that should be avoided.

On the contrary, Blurays that have a fine preservation of grain take the highest ratings, and judging from the screenshots of Duel, I believe this will too.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

DVD isnt blurrier compared to Blu-rays. The resolution is just smaller. Which makes it seem blurrier because the image is always blown up for modern TV's.

DVD does have far less detail.

[filmmusic 1,825]

DVD isnt blurrier compared to Blu-rays. The resolution is just smaller. Which makes it seem blurrier because the image is always blown up for modern TV's.

DVD does have far less detail.

well, yes, this is what I meant.

Due to the low resolution, the DVD is blurry.

[A24 4,331]

It doesn't look too much to me. If only you saw other movies with much more grain..

You compare it with movies that look good, not with those that look worse.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

DVD resolution isnt low!

Remember, not that long ago DVD was a huge, epic step forward. To go from VHS to DVD was really awesome.It changed home video viewing forever.

[filmmusic 1,825]

DVD resolution isnt low!

Remember, not that long ago DVD was a huge, epic step forward. To go from VHS to DVD was really awesome.It changed home video viewing forever.

What do you mean it isn't low?

It is low by today's standards, and comparing to a Bluray.

It isn't low if we compare to VHS.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[filmmusic 1,825]

Grain is SO 20th century. Stop living in the past!

Does that mean that we should wipe off grain of grainy films?

Maybe we should colorize all B&W movies too while we're at it? And make them to 3D?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[filmmusic 1,825]

Yes!

Ok.

We should then also re-record all classical music with samples and synths, because orchestras are so banal..

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[filmmusic 1,825]

It doesn't look too much to me. If only you saw other movies with much more grain..

You compare it with movies that look good, not with those that look worse.

What grainy Bluray (that has preserved grain) looks good in your book?

I see the same amount of grain in E.T. which is considered terrific!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Grain is fine. But if you are going to blow up the image by turning a 4:3 into a 16:9 image, therefore increasing the grain size, you should probably try and reduce it a bit.

Or better still, release a film in the original screen size.

[filmmusic 1,825]

Grain is fine. But if you are going to blow up the image by turning a 4:3 into a 16:9 image, therefore increasing the grain size, you should probably try and reduce it a bit.

Or better still, release a film in the original screen size.

for many both 4:3 and the 16:9 in these kinds of films, are the original screen size.

The 4:3 is protected for TVs, and the widescreen is the original for theaters.

But I want too the 4:3 as the widescreen crops image from top and bottom.

This has happened to many animation Blurays too.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

for many both 4:3 and the 16:9 in these kinds of films, are the original screen size.

The 4:3 is protected for TVs, and the widescreen is the original for theaters.

Wrong.

For TV 4:3 was the industry standard for decades, probably up until the late 90's early 200's.

Films became shooting in different widescreen formats in the 50's. And a 4:3 copy was usually made for TV broadcasts (remember, seeing widescreen films was extremely rare once).

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

DVD resolution isnt low!

Remember, not that long ago DVD was a huge, epic step forward. To go from VHS to DVD was really awesome.It changed home video viewing forever.

"VGA resolution isn't low!"

Well, it was amazingly high end around 1990, but technology has advanced, fortunately.

DVD resolution on a large screen is very low, and quite visibly so. Even when the format was new, non-anamorphic NTSC releases were clearly inferior to anamorphic NTSC or PAL.

Or better still, release a film in the original screen size.

Depends on what the intended presentation ratio was.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Depends on what the intended presentation ratio was.

Dude! That's what I'm like saying, yo!

[filmmusic 1,825]

for many both 4:3 and the 16:9 in these kinds of films, are the original screen size.

The 4:3 is protected for TVs, and the widescreen is the original for theaters.

Wrong.

For TV 4:3 was the industry standard for decades, probably up until the late 90's early 200's.

Films became shooting in different widescreen formats in the 50's. And a 4:3 copy was usually made for TV broadcasts (remember, seeing widescreen films was extremely rare once).

I don't understand what is wrong.

I just said that in these kind of films that were both released on TV and theaters, the 4:3 is the original TV ratio, and the widescreen is the original theater ratio (meaning how the film was originally presented at theaters).

Now, the Bluray, obviously wants to reproduce the theatrical experience, rather than the TV one.

[A24 4,331]

Depends on what the intended presentation ratio was.

In the case of Duel, it was 1.33, and not 1.85 (like the Blu-ray)

I'm keeping the DVD (1.33) since the film is specifically shot for that ratio.

[filmmusic 1,825]

Depends on what the intended presentation ratio was.

In the case of Duel, it was 1.33, and not 1.85 (like the Blu-ray)

I'm keeping the DVD since the film is specifically shot for that ratio.

1.85 was the intended for the theater!

That is what I'm trying to explain.

and if this Bluray is 90 minutes, it's the theatrical cut.

The TV cut is 74 minutes.

[A24 4,331]

?

It's made for TV, not the theater. It's a TV movie. It's shot in 1.33.

[filmmusic 1,825]

?

It's made for TV, not the theater. It's a TV movie. It's shot in 1.33.

It was broadcasted on TV yes, but it was also released theatrically in 1.85:1!

Production of the television film was overseen by ABC's director of movies of the weekend, Lillian Gallo.^[4] The original made-for-television version was 74 minutes long and was completed in 13 days (three longer than the scheduled 10 days), leaving 10 days for editing prior to broadcast as the ABC Movie of the Week. Following Duel's successful TV airing, Universal released Duel overseas in 1972, especially in Europe. Since the TV movie was not long enough for theatrical release, Universal had Spielberg spend two days filming several new scenes, turning Duel into a 90-minute film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel_%281971_film%29

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Do you know it was released like that or in 1.33:1?

[filmmusic 1,825]

Do you know it was released like that or in 1.33:1?

Where do you mean? in the theaters?

I don't believe in the theaters it would be shown on full screen in the 70s!

[A24 4,331]

Again, it's a TV movie made for TV and shot and composed in 1.33! Because it was so successful, Universal decided to show it in European theaters. I presume it was shown in 1.33. Kubrick's movies were also shown in 1.33. The DVD that was released 10 years ago has the 90-minute version and it's 1.33.

This wasn't a 1.85 movie that they have converted into a 1.33 movie for TV, filmmusic. I know they used to do that but this is a different story.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

They don't smooth over grain for the cinema, so why do it for blu-ray?

[A24 4,331]

Nobody is talking about using DNR to remove grain, Drax.

You know, in Belgium, some TV networks are afraid of showing a movie in 2.35:1 because many people don't like black bars on their TV. And so they zoom in (crop) so that we no longer can see black bars. Personally, I detest it because it deteriorates the image quality. I think changing 1.33 to 1.85 is even worse.

[nightscape94 965]

Part of the issue is that the TV is a fixed shape and people don't like a small image, they want it to fill the screen. They should just invent a TV that can change shape to fit the aspect ratio of what you're watching!

[A24 4,331]

I think true film lovers love black bars (I know I do - always have, always will). They even want to add them to their own videos to create that movie vibe, which of course is funny because there are no black bars in the theater, right?

Alex

[filmmusic 1,825]

Again, it's a TV movie made for TV and shot and composed in 1.33! Because it was so successful, Universal decided to show it in European theaters. I presume it was shown in 1.33. Kubrick's movies were also shown in 1.33. The DVD that was released 10 years ago has the 90-minute version and it's 1.33.

This wasn't a 1.85 movie that they have converted into a 1.33 movie for TV, filmmusic. I know they used to do that but this is a different story.

The added scenes were shot afterwards specifically for the theater (not TV), and I assume they were composed having in mind the 1.85:1 theatrical ratio also. I mean, they would be careful so as not to lose vital video information when they cropped the 4:3 to widescreen.

[nightscape94 965]

I think true film lovers love black bars (I know I do - always have, always will). They even want to add them to their own videos to create that movie vibe, which of course is funny because there are no black bars in the theater, right?

It might be one of those things that they remember from growing up. My parents had a big clunky Zenith in the 80s and I remember those black bars well! I never hated the widescreen presentation on the 4:3 TVs of my childhood.

Besides, TVs are so freaking big nowadays that even the 4:3 look of old shows are fine, or a tighter widescreen aspect ratio. I fail to see the issue. There's more than one way to watch a show or movie. It should be whatever was appropriate for the composition of the program. What, because things are 16:9 now suddenly 4:3 is irrelevant?

[DreamTheater 131]

Nobody is talking about using DNR to remove grain, Drax.

You know, in Belgium, some TV networks are afraid of showing a movie in 2.35:1 because many people don't like black bars on their TV. And so they zoom in (crop) so that we no longer can see black bars. Personally, I detest it because it deteriorates the image quality. I think changing 1.33 to 1.85 is even worse.

Which is why I NEVER EVER watch films via TV broadcasts. That and the commercials are major turnoffs. And sound through TV-speakers is pretty pathetic because I'm used to multi-channel sound at high volume.

[A24 4,331]

It might be one of those things that they remember from growing up. My parents had a big clunky Zenith in the 80s and I remember those black bars well! I never hated the widescreen presentation on the 4:3 TVs of my childhood.

Besides, TVs are so freaking big nowadays that even the 4:3 look of old shows are fine, or a tighter widescreen aspect ratio. I fail to see the issue. There's more than one way to watch a show or movie. It should be whatever was appropriate for the composition of the program. What, because things are 16:9 now suddenly 4:3 is irrelevant?

Exactly! I even love the black bars of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and believe me, they are BIG!

filmmusic, if you have 73 minutes of film, you probably want to shoot the other 13 minutes in such a way so that it's consistent with what you already have. Of course, Spielberg already has a strong sense for cinematic aesthetics so it's probably going to look fine to you.

[filmmusic 1,825]

It might be one of those things that they remember from growing up. My parents had a big clunky Zenith in the 80s and I remember those black bars well! I never hated the widescreen presentation on the 4:3 TVs of my childhood.

Besides, TVs are so freaking big nowadays that even the 4:3 look of old shows are fine, or a tighter widescreen aspect ratio. I fail to see the issue. There's more than one way to watch a show or movie. It should be whatever was appropriate for the composition of the program. What, because things are 16:9 now suddenly 4:3 is irrelevant?

Exactly! I even love the black bars of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and believe me, they are BIG!

filmmusic, if you have 73 minutes of film, you probably want to shoot the other 13 minutes in such a way so that it's consistent with what you already have. Of course, Spielberg already has a strong sense for cinematic aesthetics so it's probably going to look fine to you.

I'm with you here.

I would like the full version too, which has more picture.

But Blurays usually want to offer a theatrical experience..

Many people hate the bars on the right and left of 4:3 projected on widescreens.

Even TV shows like FRIENDS, were widescreen in the Bluray for that reason.

Now, we would need to make a straight comparison of specific screenshots betwen DVD and Bluray, to see if this widescreen version has more picture in the sides (usually these full screen to widescreen conversions do).

Can you grab a screenshot of your DVD that is the same with one of those of the Bluray?

Nobody is talking about using DNR to remove grain, Drax.

You know, in Belgium, some TV networks are afraid of showing a movie in 2.35:1 because many people don't like black bars on their TV. And so they zoom in (crop) so that we no longer can see black bars. Personally, I detest it because it deteriorates the image quality. I think changing 1.33 to 1.85 is even worse.

Which is why I NEVER EVER watch films via TV broadcasts. That and the commercials are major turnoffs. And sound through TV-speakers is pretty pathetic because I'm used to multi-channel sound at high volume.

I never watch TV anymore. I don't have a TV.

I mean I had, but when the signal turned digital a couple of years ago, and we had to pay for some decoders to attach to our regular TVs, I didn't get one.