73 replies to this topic

[Blofeld's Barber]

I'm considering buying the Blu-ray versions of the Bond films. Has anyone done comparison between the normal DVD and Blu-ray in terms of film clarity and overall quality? Thanks, all!

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Assuming you have an HD television, there's a huge difference between standard DVD and blu-ray.

DVD has about 300,000 pixels of information - blu-ray has over 2 million, which is sharper than most 35mm theatrical release prints. Also, blu-ray features lossless audio identical to the studio masters.

The larger the screen you have, the more pronounced the difference.

[Blofeld's Barber]

Thanks - yes, we have an HD TV. Looks like I'll be buying a Blu-ray player!

[jaguar007]

HUGE difference. I have trouble watching a Bond (or any) movie on DVD anymore. Always prefer the Blu Ray.

There is an existing thread on the Bond Blu rays. Check it out

http://debrief.comma...p...&hl=blu ray

[Loomis]

Just to say that, yes, the difference is vast. Once you've tried Bond on Blu-ray, there'll be no going back to those films on standard DVD.

[scaramunga]

Just to say that, yes, the difference is vast. Once you've tried Bond on Blu-ray, there'll be no going back to those films on standard DVD.

Agreed. Huge difference in picture quality and clarity. In addition, the sound is much better than previous DVD releases. The DTS HD Master Audio tracks are richer and clearer than even the DTS and DD UE DVD tracks.

Bond on blu ray is highly recommended. There Is No Substitute.

[captnash2]

so far only CR UE blu ray takes advantage of the in movie option.

[Joe Bond]

Just to say that, yes, the difference is vast. Once you've tried Bond on Blu-ray, there'll be no going back to those films on standard DVD.

Agreed. Huge difference in picture quality and clarity. In addition, the sound is much better than previous DVD releases. The DTS HD Master Audio tracks are richer and clearer than even the DTS and DD UE DVD tracks.

Bond on blu ray is highly recommended. There Is No Substitute.

I think Scaramanga hit it on the head. The uncompressed audio is clear and on certain titles you can notice some music that wasn't so clear before like on the FYEO gunbarrell and I noticed this just on my tv speakers which shows you don't need to have a surround set up to notice the difference in audio. IMO Blu-ray will be the last time you will have to buy these movies since it will be close to watching a film negative projected with a tad bit more clarity and theoretically the larger the screen the better Blu-ray will look so if you upgrade the size of your TV anytime in the future you will not need to worry about upgrading your Blu-ray to whatever the new format is in the future. I switched to Blu-ray last November and since then I have pretty much blustered my collection to the point where I don't need any more currently available Blu-ray's, definently I will still get new releases to come, since I have about 30 Blu-ray's total.

[Lachesis]

The advantages have been stated and are considerable, even by Blu ray standards the Bond films are getting great transfers.....the only real problems to getting them atm are that they are not all available, the box set order is all over the place, and theres no eta when or in what form the rest will arrive...if you like your sets complete and coordinated sadly there arent any options yet, but inevitably one day....

[David Schofield]

Got chance for a Bond afternoon over Christmas.

Decided to treat myself to Thunderball followed by OHMSS. Often done it before; IMO, these are a pair (like the Fleming novels on which they are based) and do not need YOLT sandwiched between them.

Watched Thunderball Blu Ray first. Stunning. Slipped in my OHMSS UE DVD. Couldn't watch it even before Laz put the Aston on the beach....

The Bond Blu Ray's make it that hard to watch DVD, particularly immediately after. Even Lowry UE. Even the classic OHMSS.

Hope this clarifies.

[General G.]

...the only real problems to getting them ATM are that they are not all available, the box set order is all over the place, and theres no ETA when or in what form the rest will arrive... if you like your sets complete and coordinated sadly there arent any options yet...

So far that hasn't been too much of a problem for me.

Since I already have the twenty "Ultimate Edition" 2-disc DVDs, I've only double-dipped on what I consider essential Bond titles: CR, QOS, LTK and the Connerys (1-4)... I'm quite content with Moore and Brosnan in "upconverted" standard definition.

Now I just need OHMSS and TLD on blu-ray -- and Bond 23, of course.

[Joe Bond]

The Bond Blu Ray's make it that hard to watch DVD, particularly immediately after. Even Lowry UE. Even the classic OHMSS.

Hope this clarifies.

That's why I have the iTunes HD version of OHMSS, while not Blu-ray quality its easily better than the DVD and it will hold me over until it gets released on Blu-ray.

[captnash2]

also its convenient to have movie + features together on a single disc with more fluid on screen menu acess unlike the dvd UEs.

[Dekard77]

It's a big deal to watch Bond on Blu. QOS,NSNA,TB,LTK and TMWGG all look completely stunning. You will notice every detail of film.

NSNA and TMWGG both have a cool retro feel.

[5 BONDS]

Can anyone confirm that For Your Eyes Only may have lip sync issues..mostly I noticed this in the opening scene when the priest speaks to Bond and also the opening credits when Sheena Easton is singing. I have set my amp to auto on for lip sync. I have done some direct comparisons with the old special edition dvd and dvd is clearly exact in sync then the blu ray.

Funny I only noticed this recently..I'm sure I've never seen it previously. Could anyone check this for me to clear up any concerns.

Most appreciated.

I have also posted this in the other blu ray thread.

[Loomis]

Got chance for a Bond afternoon over Christmas.

Decided to treat myself to Thunderball followed by OHMSS. Often done it before; IMO, these are a pair (like the Fleming novels on which they are based) and do not need YOLT sandwiched between them.

Watched Thunderball Blu Ray first. Stunning. Slipped in my OHMSS UE DVD. Couldn't watch it even before Laz put the Aston on the beach....

The Bond Blu Ray's make it that hard to watch DVD, particularly immediately after. Even Lowry UE. Even the classic OHMSS.

Hope this clarifies.

You are so right. Now that I own the Bonds on Blu-ray, the UE DVDs are unwatchable.

[Bucky]

Got chance for a Bond afternoon over Christmas.

Decided to treat myself to Thunderball followed by OHMSS. Often done it before; IMO, these are a pair (like the Fleming novels on which they are based) and do not need YOLT sandwiched between them.

Watched Thunderball Blu Ray first. Stunning. Slipped in my OHMSS UE DVD. Couldn't watch it even before Laz put the Aston on the beach....

The Bond Blu Ray's make it that hard to watch DVD, particularly immediately after. Even Lowry UE. Even the classic OHMSS.

Hope this clarifies.

You are so right. Now that I own the Bonds on Blu-ray, the UE DVDs are unwatchable.

i have been watching one bond film every couple weeks with one of my friends and it does make me kind of sad when i have to watch a film on dvd because it has not been released on bluray yet.

[Professor Dent]

I can echo everyone's comments. Buy the Bond Blu-ray's without hesitation. They look beautiful (the bigger the screen the better) & sound fantastic (especially if you can listen to the Dobly TrueHD or DTS Master Audio tracks). I now only watch DVD's on my laptop when I travel. Outside of that, it's all Blu-ray.

Good news is that all the Bond Blu-ray's have been on sale at Best Buy for $12.99 each. Not sure how long it will last so don't wait if you are going to buy.

[General G.]

Now that I own the Bonds on Blu-ray, the UE DVDs are unwatchable.

Quite frankly I don't understand that statement.

Doesn't your BD player "upconvert" standard-def discs? They don't look as nice as the blu-rays, but on my rig, at least, well-mastered regular DVDs (such as the Bond UEs) do look pretty damn good! (Note: My hi-def TV is 56".)

[jamie00007]

Yeah, I dont get statements like that about DVD either. Im a huge Blu Ray fanatic, but DVDs still look damn good, especially ones that have gotten an excellent transfer like the UE's. I often still find myself marvelling at the picture quality of some DVDs. Some of which are still better than their Blu Ray counterparts (Gladiator, for example).

[Joe Bond]

Yeah, I dont get statements like that about DVD either. Im a huge Blu Ray fanatic, but DVDs still look damn good, especially ones that have gotten an excellent transfer like the UE's. I often still find myself marvelling at the picture quality of some DVDs. Some of which are still better than their Blu Ray counterparts (Gladiator, for example).

The well mastered UE's do look pretty good on my TV as well but For Your Eyes Only UE looks pretty bad on my TV since it lacks clarity compared to other older Bonds and I think this was due to bad mastering. Thats why I got the Blu-ray which was a pretty big improvement.

[Blofeld's Barber]

Thanks for the feedback, all! I think I'll be heading to Best Buy this weekend...

[Loomis]

I often still find myself marvelling at the picture quality of some DVDs. Some of which are still better than their Blu Ray counterparts (Gladiator, for example).

How is it possible for GLADIATOR to look better on standard DVD than it does on Blu-ray?

Serious question. How is it possible? Isn't Blu-ray guaranteed to always be superior to the DVD counterpart by dint of the greater amount of information it carries? I gather that Blu-ray packs 2,073,600 pixels to standard DVD's 409,930 pixels.

Sure, the appreciable difference between standard DVD and Blu-ray may not always be as great as the appreciable difference between VHS and standard DVD, but surely Blu-ray is always better than standard DVD, just as DVD is always better than VHS.

I'd concur that some Blu-ray titles look only marginally better than their DVD counterparts (FULL METAL JACKET, for instance), but marginally better is still better. I've certainly never before encountered the claim that the best picture quality for some films is to be found on the DVD version rather than the Blu-ray. I fail to understand how that could be the case.

To answer General G.'s question, yes, my Blu-ray player does upscale DVDs. As you indicate, though, there's a world of difference between upscaling and true high definition. I've done side-by-side comparisons of my Bond UE DVDs and their Blu-ray counterparts. Sure, the UEs are good and have never looked better than when played via my Blu-ray player and HDTV - but they still don't hold a candle to their Blu-ray counterparts.

[singleentendre]

Gladiator was just a really really really horrible Blu-ray release. I don't even know what they did.

Still, with some TV adjusting it can look ok.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

How is it possible for GLADIATOR to look better on standard DVD than it does on Blu-ray?

Serious question. How is it possible? Isn't Blu-ray guaranteed to always be superior to the DVD counterpart by dint of the greater amount of information it carries? I gather that Blu-ray packs 2,073,600 pixels to standard DVD's 409,930 pixels.

Sure, the appreciable difference between standard DVD and Blu-ray may not always be as great as the appreciable difference between VHS and standard DVD, but surely Blu-ray is always better than standard DVD, just as DVD is always better than VHS.

All things being equal, blu-ray will always be superior to DVD. However, what's more important than the format is how the film was transferred and mastered. A poorly mastered film on blu-ray can look worse than the same title perfectly mastered on DVD, or even VHS.

Unfortunately, too many studios are overly aggressive in their use of digital noise reduction when mastering blu-ray titles - which makes the image cleaner and smoother, but also reduces overall detail and gives the picture an unnatural, un-filmlike look. This is what happened with Gladiator and the Star Trek films blu-rays.

[jamie00007]

Look up any review of the Gladiator Blu Ray and any comparison photos with the DVD version and you'll see that it is indeed possible for the Blu Ray to look worse. They're definitely not guaranteed to look better, though they should. A terrible transfer in HD is still a terrible transfer. The DVD version of it is by far the best version available.

Some of the reasons the Gladiator Blu Ray is awful and much worse than the DVD:

- Washed out color
- They used an old print for the transfer with no remastering (as opposed to the DVD which probably used the same print but it was new and pristine at the time), complete with dirt and scratches.
- Excessive edge enhancement and noise-reduction, making the picture actually look softer than the DVD version.

It actually has extended scenes inserted in it that come from a different print and look good, so the picture quality even changes through the film.

The digital noise-reduction is actually so bad that it removes some elements of the film (its only meant to remove grain). Things like flying arrows etc. in battle scenes have been completely removed altogether!

Edited by jamie00007, 27 March 2010 - 09:48 PM.

[Loomis]

I stand corrected.

[Joe Bond]

How is it possible for GLADIATOR to look better on standard DVD than it does on Blu-ray?

Serious question. How is it possible? Isn't Blu-ray guaranteed to always be superior to the DVD counterpart by dint of the greater amount of information it carries? I gather that Blu-ray packs 2,073,600 pixels to standard DVD's 409,930 pixels.

Sure, the appreciable difference between standard DVD and Blu-ray may not always be as great as the appreciable difference between VHS and standard DVD, but surely Blu-ray is always better than standard DVD, just as DVD is always better than VHS.

All things being equal, blu-ray will always be superior to DVD. However, what's more important than the format is how the film was transferred and mastered. A poorly mastered film on blu-ray can look worse than the same title perfectly mastered on DVD, or even VHS.

Unfortunately, too many studios are overly aggressive in their use of digital noise reduction when mastering blu-ray titles - which makes the image cleaner and smoother, but also reduces overall detail and gives the picture an unnatural, un-filmlike look. This is what happened with Gladiator and the Star Trek films blu-rays.

It's a shame that this is the case. I do have a question about whether all of the Star Trek films are affected since I was under the impression that The Wrath of Khan was pretty good with little DNR compared to the other films. Am I wrong?

[jamie00007]

I had heard that at least one of the Star Trek films was really badly done but I dont recall which one.

Edited by jamie00007, 28 March 2010 - 08:41 AM.

[bond 16.05.72]

Blu ray is like DVD and CD before it. The companies see a new format and want to capitalise on it. Look how long it took the Led Zeppelin back cat to remastered and reissued, the initial discs were inferior and poor quality. The big labels were putting out inferior discs for years after CD was launched, Pink Floyd's back cat was disgraceful on the so called superior format. The Beatles cat has only just recently been given the restoration treatment, never mind the fact that Vinyl in most cases is superior to the digital format even after all these spanking new versions have been reissued.

DVD, remember the flippers and umpteen vanilla discs put out with shoddy transfers, the likes of Heat and Pulp Fiction took years to be properly presented on the format and so we come to Blu ray, the latest controversy surrounds the LOTR trilogy. Fans are up in arms of it's presentation and it seems Warner used a 7 year old print to master it for Blu ray. Gladiator is being reissued less than a year after it's initial première on the format. The likes of Fifth Element had trade in your disc deal the treatment of that film was so slated at the time.

I watched the only version on the format of Terminator last night, it's not mind blowing but it knocks the spots off the DVD versions released but a supposedly a Lowery restoration is in works if rumours are to be believed. The big labels and distributors will always try and fleece us with inferior versions and then years later come out with something better, they don't even make a secret of it anymore.

Although when it comes down to it most of the time Blu ray blows DVD away, the picture quality, can you believe some will complain about the gorgeous restoration of The Godfather saga, some people are just looking for crystal clear presentations. Blu ray is not just about making a film look like it was made yesterday. The amount of people who think to show the format in it's best possible light is to show something like Tranformers.

Blu ray allows the film maker to go back and restore the films to as near to the their original state as possible it's only unfortunate that William Friedkin as apparently done a right pigs ear of his French Connection restoration and most are horrified even his cinematographer on that and The Exorcist Owen Roizman who has disowned Friedkins new version.

The Godfather for me is on of the real triumphs of the format, the presentation is exceptional and Coppolla himself couldn't believe how beautiful they look. Unfortunately though the companies will always look to get us to double dip etc because that's how they make their money.