Since more of the Blu-Ray discussion seems to happen here than in the Polls I'll post this here instead. Which Blu-Ray releases have been worth double dipping and which have people found to be worth sticking with their existing DVDs for? "I do not as a rule seek advice about food from thin people..." - Jeffrey Steingarten
Your best bet it to look at the Picture Quality Tier for Blu-ray thread at AVS forum. For the most part, I've tended to stay away from older films as they haven't necessarily been properly remastered before being put on Blu-ray, while films that came out after the two HD formats were introduced, are more likely to be mastered in HD in the first place. However, there are definitely some exceptions. I probably wouldn't upgrade any titles that are listed as being in the Bronze category or lower (unless the Blu-ray version contains special features that I really want to own).
I only buy my favorite movies on BR, I don't care if I already have them on DVD and if the quality is not a lot better. It's the fact that it's on BR and I want them on that format. Just for the feel of it. I own these movies both on DVD and BR, they were not very expensive: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Predator Predator 2 Alien vs Predator Signs The Day after Tomorrow Donnie Brasco Independence Day Bram Stroker's Dracula
I'm someone who is very difficult to buy presents for, because when I want something, I buy it myself. Because of that, friends & family often ask what I want for Christmas or my birthday. I've found that Blu-ray titles of movies that I already own on DVD, that I'm "on the fence" about, are good things to ask for as gifts. I've always thought that the definition of a good gift is "something that the person wants, but wouldn't buy for themself". That's exactly what those "on the fence" titles are for me. I want it, but I just can't pull the trigger to buy it.
Back when CDs first came out, the majority of the titles were just re-issues of previous analog releases. What they did do that was clever, however, was to create a three letter code to help us make choices: AAD Analog recording, Analog mastering, Digital disk ADD Analog recording, Digital mastering, Digital disk DDD Digital recording, Digital mastering, Digital disk Is there something like this being done for Blu-ray DVDs?
No. The problem is that something like this really wouldn't have any meaning (it would actually create more confusion). 35mm film (analog) has higher resolution that HD (digital) does. So, reporting that something was shot in the digital realm wouldn't necessarily mean that a Blu-ray disc of that content has better picture quality than a Blu-ray disc of film based content looks. Realistically, reading reviews is probably the best methodology for determining picture quality, prior to purchasing a Blu-ray disc, right now.
^ Sorry to disagree, Bill. But, it would sure mean a lot knowing what originated as VHS (shot on video) and regular DVD. I love the film classics as well as anybody. But, again, who's remastering the 35mm films? Very few. We're lucky that we get DVDs at all (even if a lot of them are nothing more than digital copies of the best video tape they could get their hands on). From what I understand, film masters, even prints from theatres, are almost non-existent. Something like this could work: 16-A-HD 16-D-HD 35-A-HD 35-D-HD V-A-HD V-D-HD D-D-HD HD-D-HD IMHO, paying Blu-ray prices for something that wasn't shot on HD in the first place is pointless.
That's just incorrect. There are a quite a few movies that are being remastered off of restored 35mm prints. If nothing was being remastered, then there would be no reason to buy any movie, that was released prior to HD, on Blu-ray.What would that actually tell you? If we're talking about mainstream movies, they all originated in either 35 mm or HD (with 35mm being the higher quality of the two). When film is better quality than HD, it doesn't matter whether the product originated in the analog or digital realm. Neither one, will cause the end result to be better than the other.If you're talking porn, I agree. However, since the topic of this thread is about what DVD's are worth replacing with a Blu-ray version, if we're talking porn, then I'll say none are. If we're talking mainstream Blu-ray, I totally disagree with your statement for the reasons previously stated.
It would tell me a lot! Why do you keep trying to frame the entire question in terms of 35mm film? BTW, I'm talking about porn -- NOT mainstream movies. When talking about porn, my examples are very relevant. The VAST majority of porn shot before HD was shot on video tape and digital (and not all digital was good). Also, not every film print shipped to theatres was 35mm. 16mm was fairly common for porn. And, of course, even 8mm loops were transferred to VHS (God knows what film format they were originally shot in). My examples assumed you would treat the abbreviations as (first of the 3 positions): 16mm = from a 16mm master or theatrical print 35mm = from a 35mm master or theatrical print V = original source shot on video tape D = original source shot in digital HD = original source shot in HD
Because, unlike VHS and, to some extent, DVD, porn isn't doing much with Blu-ray yet, compared to mainstream. I don't know the numbers. But I'd be extremely surprised if porn makes up .5% of Blu-ray sales to date. So, I'm framing the issue around the other 99.5% of Blu-ray sales.