Creating a Blu-ray Library

[mcraghead]

I've heard people mention updating their library (collection of video discs) to Blu-ray of titles that they already have or possibly from titles that they've never owed in another format. However, at what point does it not make sense to get a particular film/title in Blu-ray?

What I mean by that is how do you know if the source material was shot in HD and that the Blu-ray product is not just an up-conversion? If you take a source that was originally done in standard definition, transfering it to Blu-ray doesn't make it HD, does it? How would that be any better than getting that same material in DVD format and using one of the latest up-conversion DVD players that does 1080i/p?

I don't know that much about the movie industry, but I know movies weren't always shot in HD, but at what point did this start to occur? Is there any valid reason, other than possible 'extras' on the Blu-ray disc, to purchase a Blu-ray version of a movie that wasn't shot in HD?

Hopefully my questions make sense. Thanks.

Michael K. Craghead
"Nunca Pescao, Siempre Tiburon"

[TheMoose]

Personally I buy all the new releases on Blu-Ray & only replace my favorite SD-DVD's when they are on sale.

If a movie was shot on film I believe it has a high enough resolution to be transferred as 1080p, there are people on here that have more knowledge of that stuff than I do so maybe they can better answer that question.

[faberryman]

Originally Posted by TheMoose

If a movie was shot on film I believe it has a high enough resolution to be transferred as 1080p.

Film stock easily exceeds the resolution of HD video. The only issue is how well the films have been preserved and how carefully they have been transfered from film to disc. Witness the debacle with the terrible transfer of The Fifth Element. The initial Bluray was a definite step down from the DVD due to poor mastering. Thankfully it was re-mastered and re-released.

[Captain Stereo]

Originally Posted by faberryman

Film stock easily exceeds the resolution of HD video. The only issue is how well the films have been preserved and how carefully they have been transfered from film to disc. Witness the debacle with the terrible transfer of The Fifth Element. The initial Bluray was a definite step down from the DVD due to poor mastering. Thankfully it was re-mastered and re-released.

Exactly right. It probably makes sense to read reviews from sites that pick older releases apart to make sure it's worth it. I know I'd re-think a couple of decisions if I had done that. Newer releases are a no brainer though. I don't buy regular DVD anymore.

[kennyt]

Originally Posted by Captain Stereo

Exactly right. It probably makes sense to read reviews from sites that pick older releases apart to make sure it's worth it. I know I'd re-think a couple of decisions if I had done that. Newer releases are a no brainer though. I don't buy regular DVD anymore.

That said, I did buy Natural Born Killers on Blu-ray, yep, some of it is shot in 8mm film, and it looks bad, but I love the film and needed it in the newest format. You can, and likely rightly so, argue it was a waste of money, but I now own it so I would argue otherwise.....

[TracyRainH2o]

If parts were shot on 8mm then it was done for the effect. Gritty, gainly and a little bit jumpy. You can't really count that against the video quality.

That was one messed up film.