Blu VS DVD

[Bringer Of Funerals]

Im just curious - hence why im asking this.

Out of your film range (brilliance in choice) how do you decide what gets released on Blu and what doesen't - hence released on DVD. Because I thought you would do what other film companies do and thats release them on both formats.

[pedromonkey]

Originally Posted by Bringer Of Funerals

Im just curious - hence why im asking this.

Out of your film range (brilliance in choice) how do you decide what gets released on Blu and what doesen't - hence released on DVD. Because I thought you would do what other film companies do and thats release them on both formats.

it all depends on the materials Arrow are given and if it's possible to do a HD remaster, i read that on here when Island of Death came out, can't remember now, but it costs alot more to do things HD too.

[g053584398]

And of course along with the additional costs associated with Blu Ray production there is also the fact that sales are much more limited than those of DVDs.

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by g053584398

And of course along with the additional costs associated with Blu Ray production there is also the fact that sales are much more limited than those of DVDs.

Not necessarily. I seem to recall Arrow saying that some recent-ish releases were Blu-ray only because that's where the biggest market share was at the moment.

Seriously, think about it. Many of the films Arrow release already have superlative DVD releases and most people already have those, hence sales are obviously going to be lower than usual. But premiere a movie on BD that no-one's got, you've immediately got a bigger market share and hence, I imagine, bigger sales.

[keirarts]

I tend to go for blu-ray unless the film is an unknown quantity. A lot of the new straight-to-disc movies i'll pick up cheap on dvd and if its good the film gets bought on blu.

Stuff like arrow, blue underground, BFI, EUREKA and major films like dirt harry, dollars trilogy ect have all been upgraded.

I do think certain titles are beast left on disc, I still think maniac is the prime example of that, and I doubt wether its the right course of action for 90% of code reds output. That said I could be wrong, the terror, dementia 13, poor pretty eddie, student bodies and crate lake monster all look way better than they have a right to on blu-ray.

[Daemonia]

Some good points there, keirarts (enjoyed your letter in the Dark Side BTW). However, I would still argue that just about every film, no matter how poor the source, has to be compressed to fit onto DVD. BD has bigger storage so, in theory, even films from a poor source should look better than they do on DVD due to less compression being employed. Even SD material on a BD should look better than on DVD.

I quite liked the look of Maniac on BD. It's a dirty, grubby little film shot on the cheap, and it looks exactly like that. I think the BD has a more filmic quality to it than previous DVD incarnations. But that's just me, I'm happy with it, but then again I'm easily pleased.

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

Some good points there, keirarts (enjoyed your letter in the Dark Side BTW). However, I would still argue that just about every film, no matter how poor the source, has to be compressed to fit onto DVD. BD has bigger storage so, in theory, even films from a poor source should look better than they do on DVD due to less compression being employed. Even SD material on a BD should look better than on DVD.

I quite liked the look of Maniac on BD. It's a dirty, grubby little film shot on the cheap, and it looks exactly like that. I think the BD has a more filmic quality to it than previous DVD incarnations. But that's just me, I'm happy with it, but then again I'm easily pleased.

Fair enough, but I still maintain, the old anchor bay tin has more detail on upscale than the blu, compare the scene of tom savini leaving the club with his lady, on the blu a lot of the details seem blurry while the old anchor bay edition looks a lot clearer.

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by keirarts

Fair enough, but I still maintain, the old anchor bay tin has more detail on upscale than the blu, compare the scene of tom savini leaving the club with his lady, on the blu a lot of the details seem blurry while the old anchor bay edition looks a lot clearer.

I do tend to agree. However, the key word here is 'should' look better on BD. I'm still convinced that for whatever reason, BU didn't do as good a job on mastering for Blu-ray as they could have done with this particular title. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in a couple of years' time there'll be a new super-duper even more remastered edition. I guess this is also kind of inevitable, as it was with DVD. As companies get to grips with the BD format and encoding techniques improve (which they undoubtedly will) there'll be new editions of films that haven't fared well on BD so far - like Maniac.

For me, I think The Good, The Bad and The Ugly needs a totally new remaster. The MGM one just doesn't look right to me eyes. Image detail seems lacking and the DNR appears to have been used over-zealously resulting in a rather soft image lacking in fine detail. I also expect this one to get another overhaul in the future. This and Near Dark and the UK Escape from New York give us the worst of what the format has to offer IMO.

Personally, I think with the death of HD DVD and the resultant lack of competing HD format, the studios have just got plain lazy. Competition can be a good thing, with each side striving to be the better format. I mean, come on, Universal are actually downgrading their HD masters for Blu-ray. I swear that The Thing looked much better on HD DVD than it does it on BD. When I saw the HD DVD I was gobsmacked by the transfer - you could see the defined snowflakes against a pure white, snowy landscape it was that clear, but on the BD I wasn't as impressed, it seemed that Universal had tinkered with the transfer.

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

I do tend to agree. However, the key word here is 'should' look better on BD. I'm still convinced that for whatever reason, BU didn't do as good a job on mastering for Blu-ray as they could have done with this particular title. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in a couple of years' time there'll be a new super-duper even more remastered edition. I guess this is also kind of inevitable, as it was with DVD. As companies get to grips with the BD format and encoding techniques improve (which they undoubtedly will) there'll be new editions of films that haven't fared well on BD so far - like Maniac.

For me, I think The Good, The Bad and The Ugly needs a totally ne remaster. The MGM one just doesn't look right to me eyes. Image detail seems lacking and the DNR appears to have been used over-zealously resulting in a rather soft image lacking in fine detail. I also expect this one to get another overhaul in the future.

I may check that out, its still in my too watch pile. Still only £12 from CEX for all three dollars films so no loss.

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by keirarts

I may check that out, its still in my too watch pile. Still only £12 from CEX for all three dollars films so no loss.

Oh it's not bad by any means. But it's one of those 'a definite upgrade from DVD' meaning it's okay, but not really good enough. Films shouldn't just be a minor upgrade to BD, they should be stunning upgrades that blow the DVD out of the ballpark.