Movies Worth Owning in High Definition

[DaMadFiddler]

Lately, I've been building my film and television library, as I have already managed to collect most of the music and video games (not counting new releases, of course) that I want. As more and more things become available on Blu-Ray, I have found myself having to make a choice. In some cases, the Blu-Ray has been very close to the price of the DVD. I have half a dozen or so films in high definition now... but for the vast majority of them, the only significant difference I've noticed is fewer compression artifacts / truer color. Generally, that doesn't seem worth the extra price.

There are some exceptions, of course:

- Pixar films look indisputably better on Blu-Ray
- The Dark Knight is absolutely stunning on Blu-Ray, especially since they preserve the Imax scenes
- Details really stand out in the Blu-Ray edition of Nightmare Before Christmas
- The BBC's "Planet Earth" is really all about the HD experience. It's like watching an Imax film; if you're not going to watch it in the setting it was designed for (HD), don't bother
- The Blu-Ray editions of several films are worth it for the extra features, if you'll use them (though I've noticed a trend of Blu-Ray releases being the Director's Cuts / extended editions of films, without access to the theatrical cut or even any indication that it is *not* the theatrical version. I know some people were upset about this with Superman, for example)

However, for the most part, it seems like the picture quality is really not much better for films that are more than a few years old. If there is a high-quality transfer available on DVD, you might as well save your money. (For example: I will probably get the Blu-Ray release of Clash of the Titans when it comes out, because the DVD transfer was terrible, and they're remastering it for the Blu-Ray). The lower price and easier format shifting of DVDs (read: more easily rippable so I can transfer them to my iPod) seems to make the Blu-Rays not worth the extra cost, unless there is not good DVD edition, or the movie is a new release so they can make the Blu-Ray from a clean, fresh source.

And as far as TV is concerned... television programming generally isn't a high quality video source to begin with, so there's no point in paying the extra cost for Blu-Ray.

So, for anyone else who has been experimenting with HD content:

What films or other programs do you feel are "must-own" in high definition rather than on DVD?

As mentioned above, I would start the list with The Dark Knight, and anything Pixar.

[Code-Red]

Funny you should bring this up... I've been wondering the same thing. I recently picked up a 32" LG lcd capable of 1080p. I streamed The Dark Knight to it in full hd and thought it looked excellent. Unfortunately, as you noted, the price and cons of Bluray currently outweigh the pro's. I think I'll pick up a BR player capable of upconversion of dvd for now, and keep an eye on this thread.

[Quzar]

First off, it seems like every time we discuss something it ends up a forum topic eventually =P.

it seems like the picture quality is really not much better for films that are more than a few years old.

Exactly wrong. What there is though is a grey area where a lot of studios thought that (digital or analogue) video was the wave of the future and tossed out their film in favor of it. So a lot of films from lets say 1980-2000 suffer from this lack of foresight. You also have to look at if the film has actually been recaptured/retransferred and the details of this.

One of the biggest problems you might find is with material originally not widescreen (not usually applicable to movies unless they are *very* old). There is a new evil younger brother to pan&scan: cropping (ok, there's a nicer jargon less generic term for it that I can't remember). Basically you'll just see the top and bottom of the frame completely removed.

Two other issues you'll commonly find are oversharpening and oversaturation. Both of these techniques tend to make it look 'more HD', but distort the picture. You might as well just turn up the temperature on your tv (erm, color temp). These last three things though are issues you'll find just with the transfer to HD and can't really tell you what specific movies to pick.

Only movie I have blu-ray is Sleeping Beauty, so you might not want my advice there (although it's stunning in HD: http://www.imagebam.com/image/3b178d19514828), but I'd stay away from older films unless you like seeing film grain or the dvd version is bad (oftentimes they would have wrong aspect ratio or be overcompressed in order fit the widescreen and fullscreen on a single side or whatnot).

If you don't hate grain and don't have it on DVD: http://achumpatoxford.com/u/files/218/8 ... 3282cf.png

On the other hand, this might actually look better on VHS =P: http://www.imagebam.com/image/e15b1528491512

In short, I would suggest looking for screenshots of any movie you intend to get in HD beforehand.

[lackofsense]

In an additional note, The Shining was actually filmed with a TV aspect ratio and then cropped for theaters.

[Lartrak]

One of the biggest problems you might find is with material originally not widescreen (not usually applicable to movies unless they are *very* old). There is a new evil younger brother to pan&scan: cropping (ok, there's a nicer jargon less generic term for it that I can't remember). Basically you'll just see the top and bottom of the frame completely removed.

Another problem, though not unique to bluray, are films not at a ratio close to 16:9 that are converted into it. It's not as bad as the conversion to 4:3, but I still wish they'd leave EVERY FILM at its original aspect ratio.

but I'd stay away from older films unless you like seeing film grain

Why wouldn't you want to see the film grain? You can see it on DVDs as is, and that just means you're getting a picture closer to the 35MM original. If you can't see it, that just means the picture is blurred too much for details to be visible.

BTW, that Street Fighter pic is very grainy, but I'd like to see it in motion. What's the source?

In an additional note, The Shining was actually filmed with a TV aspect ratio and then cropped for theaters.

A lot of movies are shot at 4:3 with the intention of cropping. Literally thousands of them. 35MM film is naturally at a 4:3 aspect ratio (which is why almost all movies before the mid 50s are at 4:3 or close to it), to achieve different ratios they have to use an anamorphic lense or crop it in post. Sometimes the "full screen" versions are uncropped, and sometimes because of this you can see errors - stuff like boom mics or cables that were intended to be cropped out. Other times the framing is simply artistically inferior.

It's always best to have what the director intended the ratio to be, not always what it was shot in.

[DaMadFiddler]

One of the biggest problems you might find is with material originally not widescreen (not usually applicable to movies unless they are *very* old). There is a new evil younger brother to pan&scan: cropping (ok, there's a nicer jargon less generic term for it that I can't remember). Basically you'll just see the top and bottom of the frame completely removed.

Another problem, though not unique to bluray, are films not at a ratio close to 16:9 that are converted into it. It's not as bad as the conversion to 4:3, but I still wish they'd leave EVERY FILM at its original aspect ratio.

I've noticed that with a lot of DVDs, particularly late 90s / early 2000s releases. Whenever I come across a DVD that's in 16x9, I'm always left wondering whether it was actually 1.85:1 (some films are), or it was 2.35:1 that was slightly cropped for the DVD.

[Skynet]

Anything on HD-DVD, because it's so cheap.

Seriously, that HD-DVD 360 add-on was the best £20 (with 3 films!) I ever spent

Yeah, I got nearly 30 HD movies. What's fucked is I have 4 copies of the first Harry Potter movie. With every 3 HD-DVDs you buy from this shop, you'd get the first HP movie free. Well I bought enough in 1 transaction to get 4 copies of the same damn movie!


As for Bluray, I have a PS3 and have 3 Bluray movies. They are The Dark Knight, Iron Man and a HD disc of the universe.

[Quzar]

but I'd stay away from older films unless you like seeing film grain

Why wouldn't you want to see the film grain? You can see it on DVDs as is, and that just means you're getting a picture closer to the 35MM original. If you can't see it, that just means the picture is blurred too much for details to be visible.

BTW, that Street Fighter pic is very grainy, but I'd like to see it in motion. What's the source?

I realize now that my statement implied that it was a bad thing. I'm a fan of grain, when it is natural of course. The SF movie still is IMO overgrained, a sign of poor quality film (either from the start or due to deterioration) OR the result of extreme oversharpening.

Source is the new BluRay of the movie (ok, I pulled the image off an HD torrent site offering the BD [no, not an encode, although that too]).


Compare that to something transferred from a 16mm source: http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i123972_jimi5bd.png

Found a good example of the decapitation effect:
DVD and HD DVD

Another interesting thing is being done with things like DragonBallZ, whose movies and series are getting HD retransfers from masters. Apparently the originals were widescreen, but nowhere near 16:9, so in the process of making them widescreen the frame is being opened up on the sides while chopped off at top and bottom. There's an overall gain in area, but it's all stuff that was not intended to be seen.

One last little interesting thing:
When transfering the Cowboy Bebop movie, the OAR was maintaned, and they zoomed back just slightly so that absolutely none of the frame is lost, but you get an odd non-solid (it's not like letterboxing/pillarboxing where it's solid/pure black) border. This also resulted in a bit of shaking throughout. (this was also done with Akira)

[Lartrak]

I'm guessing the graininess of Street Fighter is due to using a very fast film stock - it's too consistent to be age, and it looks too natural to be a bad transfer. For a relatively big budget 35MM Hollywood film though, it is VERY grainy. The 16MM comparison is a good one - I've seen very well-lit 16MM films less grainy than the Street Fighter pics. From what I remember of it, even Evil Dead, in the 35MM blowup I saw it screened in, looked comparable in graininess - and that was low budget with gaffers that were probably not too experienced.

http://www.twowiresthin.com/aspect/

I just like that link because the bottom example is one of the best for demonstrating why using the intended AR is so important. The other examples are very good of course, but the bit from A Fish Called Wanda inarguably damages the scene.

Whenever I come across a DVD that's in 16x9, I'm always left wondering whether it was actually 1.85:1 (some films are), or it was 2.35:1 that was slightly cropped for the DVD.

I'd say it is actually just as common now as a few years back - maybe even more so, since 16:9 TVs are so common, they format them for those TVs. On a slight note, 16x9 isn't exactly 1.85:1, it's 1.77:1 (if memory serves, they averaged the most common aspect ratios to come up with a compromise one). Close enough that that tiny alteration isn't too noticeable.

BTW, I'd say the cropping of 2.35:1 to 16:9 is pretty significant. Not nearly as significant as 2.35:1 to 4:3 (where you lost almost half), but if they're cropping it you're still losing some 25% of the picture.

[jaredfogle]

IIRC, Kubrick often shot in 4:3 because he foresaw the home video phenomenon as the future of film distribution and experience. He never intended the movies to be cropped to 16x9 (I think much of the cinematography in his 4:3 films will back me up on this).

I guess he didn't realize we would all have widescreen TVs eventually.

[impetus]

I own more HD movies than I care to admit (just take it on my word that I'm an expert); here are what I consider some of the format's showpieces:

Blade Runner
Kingdom of Heaven
Pan's Labyrinth
Planet Earth
Pirates of the Carribbean
Ratatouille
Sunshine
Transformers

[BlackAura]

oftentimes they would have wrong aspect ratio or be overcompressed in order fit the widescreen and fullscreen on a single side or whatnot

Do they actually do that on US DVD releases? I was aware that, at some point, there used to be "fullscreen" and widescreen versions of the same movie, but I never saw the point - every DVD player I've ever seen is able to scale the image and crop the sides for display on a 4:3 TV anyway.

In PAL-land (regions 2 and 4 at least), there's only ever one version of a movie on DVD. Unless it's an old movie, that one version is typically 16:9, with the correct film aspect ratio (including some letterboxing if required for films wider than 16:9), in 567p.

No wonder I never saw the point in Blu-Ray. Between higher resolution, true progressive scan, and what appears to be higher bitrate, it sounds like our DVDs are much higher quality than yours.

[DaMadFiddler]

So far, the movies we own on Blu-Ray:

Amadeus
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Batman: Gotham Knight
Be Kind Rewind
Bladerunner (the insane every-version-ever collection; Amazon had it on sale for $20 a while back)
A Clockwork Orange
Nightmare Before Christmas
Pirates of the Caribbean
Serenity
Stargate
Unforgiven
The Untouchables
Wall-E

It may seem like a lot, but Eva and I have a ton of movies... these only represent a very small portion of our library. Generally speaking, we only buy the Blu-Ray when we can find it for $12-$13 or less (usually on sale or used), unless there's some special reason we really want it on Blu-Ray (such as the Imax scenes in The Dark Knight).

I haven't watched all of these yet. Obviously, the more fine detail there is to a shot (such as Nightmare Before Christmas), the more immediately noticeable the high-definition image is going to be.

Of this list: A Clockwork Orange is the one that stands out most as "not worth it." The film looks like it's been put through a series of sharpening filters, and as a result looks more or less like an upscaled VHS.

The Untouchables, Unforgiven, and Amadeus all look good, but I wouldn't really say you gain enough over DVD in terms of clarity or image quality to justify the extra cost.

Dark Knight, Pirates, Wall-E, and Nightmare Before Christmas all look amazing, have tons of features (often not present on the DVD releases), and are probably our most compelling Blu-Ray purchases so far. (Incidentally: We have The Matrix and Sin City preordered, and we're also planning on getting Clash of the Titans and The Incredibles whenever they come out, though neither of these is available for preorder yet).

I can't speak to Batman Begins, Be Kind Rewind, Serenity, or Stargate, as we haven't watched them yet. (And Serenity will be a while; we're only three episodes into Firefly).

There are some other films that seem like they would be good to own in HD, but we already own the DVD versions of many of these (for example: Ratatouille, Kill Bill, Pan's Labyrinth), and haven't decided yet whether or not it's worth the cost of replacing any of our DVDs with Blu-Ray copies.

[Jeeba Jabba]

I guess he didn't realize we would all have widescreen TVs eventually.

Nope! The screens in 2001 are tall screens--the complete opposite.

[Quzar]

oftentimes they would have wrong aspect ratio or be overcompressed in order fit the widescreen and fullscreen on a single side or whatnot

Do they actually do that on US DVD releases? I was aware that, at some point, there used to be "fullscreen" and widescreen versions of the same movie, but I never saw the point - every DVD player I've ever seen is able to scale the image and crop the sides for display on a 4:3 TV anyway.

In PAL-land (regions 2 and 4 at least), there's only ever one version of a movie on DVD. Unless it's an old movie, that one version is typically 16:9, with the correct film aspect ratio (including some letterboxing if required for films wider than 16:9), in 567p.

No wonder I never saw the point in Blu-Ray. Between higher resolution, true progressive scan, and what appears to be higher bitrate, it sounds like our DVDs are much higher quality than yours.

A lot of DVDs here in the states still come in both fullscreen and widescreen on a single side. The only transformation I've ever seen a DVD player do is letterboxing for 16:9->4:3, which people tend to hate with a passion. "Why is there so much black space? Why not just fill up the screen!" etc.

Also, I've never seen, even in higher end players, the ability to 'close the matte' to go from 4:3 material on the DVD to a 16:9 TV. But yes, overall I'd agree we get really poor DVD releases here. A recent movie I saw weighed in at a little over 5gb total disc size with a full and widecsreen copy of the movie, which was about 100minutes long, and some extras.

[impetus]

Trying to upgrade a large collection is a pretty pointless task, but certain DVD's are worth upgrading if you like the movie:
- movies with particularly high-quality visuals
- newer DVD releases that you can sell for a decent return
- crappy DVD's. With HDTV, you'll start to see which these are. Early DVDs, older films in need of remastering, non-anamorphic or highly-compressed transfers... in short, movies that look fine on standard TV's but will look awful on your HDTV. By virtue of their lower resolution, traditional TV's perform anti-aliasing that helps bad DVD's look good -- and you'll miss it.
- your personal favorite movies, obviously.

(Copy/pasted from a previous post elsewhere. The phrasing isn't directed at you, Fiddler)

[Wagh]

Akira
Sin City
Predator
Alien
Robocop

[Jeeba Jabba]

Robocop

I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR

[BlackAura]

A lot of DVDs here in the states still come in both fullscreen and widescreen on a single side. The only transformation I've ever seen a DVD player do is letterboxing for 16:9->4:3, which people tend to hate with a passion. "Why is there so much black space? Why not just fill up the screen!" etc.

PAL DVD players pretty much all have the option to show 16:9 on a 4:3 TV by cropping the sides, or by letterboxing. Even el-cheapo region free Chinese knockoff DVD players. I've never seen one that didn't. If it's a feature film encoded with the original aspect ratio, it is (of course) going to have some letterboxing anyway, but nowhere near as much.

A recent movie I saw weighed in at a little over 5gb total disc size with a full and widecsreen copy of the movie, which was about 100minutes long, and some extras.

That's terrible.

A typical PAL release has just the one copy of the movie. On shorter movies (usually around 80 minutes), the video plus the English language AC3 soundtrack might be small enough to fit on a single layer DVD-R (around 4.3GB total). More typically, the video alone is upwards of 5GB. They often come with audio tracks in about ten languages, so the soundtracks take up another 2GB or so. More if there are commentary tracks, or DTS versions of any of the audio tracks.

[Lartrak]

PAL DVD players pretty much all have the option to show 16:9 on a 4:3 TV by cropping the sides, or by letterboxing. Even el-cheapo region free Chinese knockoff DVD players. I've never seen one that didn't. If it's a feature film encoded with the original aspect ratio, it is (of course) going to have some letterboxing anyway, but nowhere near as much.

Two notes on this. 4:3 Pan-and-scan does not involve merely cropping the sides. If it's a film shot at 4:3 and matted to a wide ratio, they open it up to 4:3, meaning more picture but botched framing. If it was shot anamorphically, they manually pan horizontally to show what is important. If you don't do this, you'll end up with scenes with two characters talking while both of them are chopped off. Believe me, I have some 4:3 Chinese films that don't have any pan-and-scanning that do this, it's very crappy. Obviously, original aspect ratio is what I vastly prefer, but if it has to be 4:3, a decent pan-and-scan conversion is WAY better than simply chopping it.

That's the reason it's nice, if you're going to have to have a 4:3 version, it's best to not merely have your DVD player do it. Admittedly though, those who prefer cropped versions probably won't appreciate much the advantages of pan-and-scanning.

On shorter movies (usually around 80 minutes), the video plus the English language AC3 soundtrack might be small enough to fit on a single layer DVD-R (around 4.3GB total). More typically, the video alone is upwards of 5GB.

Most US DVD releases I've seen use an average bitrate around 5.5-6 Mbps with a maximum of around 8-8.5 Mbps. The movies usually end up around 3.8-4 gigs or so (assuming 100 minutes or less), leaving a bit of time for a few small extras. They do this both to fit on the cheaper single layer format, and because higher bitrates can choke many players. They simply can't handle higher sustained data rates.

On another note, the films that are encoded this way look fine if done well. There were releases of films with higher sustained bit rate versions (Megabit or something, it was called) but the quality differences were relatively minimal. And, of course, newer dual layer releases often do use higher rates, though they still avoid going over around 8.5ish Mbps.

I will agree that the releases that have two separate titles (anamorphic and non-anamorphic) and are single-layer.. A lot of them show serious compression issues.

true progressive scan

I'd argue that. NTSC players can extract true 24 FPS progressive frames out of the interlaced streams, provided it is flagged correctly. While the resolution and luminance/chroma is better in PAL, I'll also note the sped up nature of 25P is simply unacceptable. It baffles me that so few people are bothered by this. People here were so outraged when they sped up Star Wars to get it to fit on a single LaserDisc that they had to quickly release a two disc version to make up for it.

I do understand that Blu-Ray finally brings true 24P to PAL regions, so that's great.