I've seen about 30 BD movies now on my PS3. I won't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that the movies where Blu Ray really makes a big difference in terms of visual impact are those filmed with digital cameras. Two titles come to mind: Click and Flyboys. Neither of these are particularly great movies, but they do have very noticeable level of detail, eye-popping color (some might say unrealistically bright colors), and total lack of noise. I didn't choose either movie for that reason, but in reading over the reviews later, it was clear that both had been filmed digitally. Perhaps it's something to keep in mind if you're looking for material to show off Blu Ray to your friends.

This is not to say I'm against regular film, or against the filmmakers' choice to add noise for artistic reasons. For example, one of my favorite BD movies is Black Hawk Down, which has a lot of enhanced noise that adds to the reality of the scenes. I like both the PQ and the movie itself. But it probably wouldn't be my first choice in showing off the quality of Blu Ray.

Also, if you want to check out HD Video titles, you can consider:


Crank
Apocalypto


Also, once it finally hits Blu-Ray, Robert Rodriguez's has a couple of movies shot on HD video:

Once Upon A Time in Mexico (first one he shot on HD video)

Film is better, has more detail and there's nothing like images going up on screen at a true 24fps (which is really 23.98.....).

Digital is glossy and clear, but has a resolution cap. 24fps on a digital camera is based on an estimate or an equation and feels slightly faster than real life therefore unsatisfatory.

Digital is easier to work with and manipulate with color correction and thats why it looks great on Blu-ray to a lot of people. I understand that a movie like Crank benefits from this look. You can add video noise but its not the same. Imagine The Godfather looking like that. Grain is precious and adds meaning to films. Digital is a cold dark world with no feelings. Digital is fine for low budget money saving purposes or lower tier comic book movies but FILM IS KING.

Film is better, has more detail and there's nothing like images going up on screen at a true 24fps (which is really 23.98.....).

Digital is glossy and clear, but has a resolution cap. 24fps on a digital camera is based on an estimate or an equation and feels slightly faster than real life therefore unsatisfatory.

Digital is easier to work with and manipulate with color correction and thats why it looks great on Blu-ray to a lot of people. I understand that a movie like Crank benefits from this look. You can add video noise but its not the same. Imagine The Godfather looking like that. Grain is precious and adds meaning to films. Digital is a cold dark world with no feelings. Digital is fine for low budget money saving purposes or lower tier comic book movies but FILM IS KING.It depends on what you're going for. 300 looks amazing on film. Apocolypto looks fantastic on digital, and wouldn't feel the same on film. You can't make a blanket statement like "Film is King" when different pieces aspire to create different aesthetic qualities. :rolleyes:

Did you even read my post I said digital looks great on some movies and I said that Crank was a good example of that.:rolleyes:

Apocalypto looks good but Iam not trying to take high reslution stills Iam trying to watch a movie. Since it was shot on video, motion blur and the frame rate make it very distracting and detract from the viewing experience (You are concious that its a movie and not completely drawn in). I still think its a good movie but there was no depth to. Its shot the same way Jay Leno and Conan O'brien are. OTOH a movie like The New World which is shot on films conveys the depth and beauty intended by Emmanuel Lubezki and Terrence Malick.

Film is better, has more detail and there's nothing like images going up on screen at a true 24fps (which is really 23.98.....).

Digital is glossy and clear, but has a resolution cap. 24fps on a digital camera is based on an estimate or an equation and feels slightly faster than real life therefore unsatisfatory.

Digital is easier to work with and manipulate with color correction and thats why it looks great on Blu-ray to a lot of people. I understand that a movie like Crank benefits from this look. You can add video noise but its not the same. Imagine The Godfather looking like that. Grain is precious and adds meaning to films. Digital is a cold dark world with no feelings. Digital is fine for low budget money saving purposes or lower tier comic book movies but FILM IS KING.

1st off, Check out www.red.com if you think Digital has a cap. Hate to break it to you, but Digital is the next wave. Yes, there will always be purists like yourself and Spielberg, but for the rest of us, shooting, editing and doing everything post in a digital world, is COST and TIME effective and you can achieve the same results as film in a 1/4 of the time, so to speak.

Well.....What you are talking about is using a Digital Intermediate. It has nothing to do if the film in question was shot on film or digital. The source is scanned in at 4k resolution onto a Digital Intermediate. From there, the artist(s) has many, may more available tools for color correction, etc. The days of using chemicals to achieve particular results are a thing of the past. No longer does a studio have to spend money for something like a Silver Retention Process.

You say Digital is a cold dark world. Funny that 300 (though shot on 35mm film) went through a tedious DI to achieve it's color palate and actually added grain. Superman Returns (shot on Genesis or Viper Digital Cams) looks awfully warm and film-like to me.

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/3922/super8003tc5.jpg
To each, his own.

P

i had beeen under the impression that 300 was shot on hd, otherwise why would the grain need to be added? shouldnt grain already be there if shot on film?

Was shot on 35mm Film. Here are the specs:

Arriflex Cameras, Panavision Lenses
Panavision Cameras and Lenses
Photosonics 4ER


Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm (Kodak Vision2 Expression 500T 5229)


Cinematographic process
Digital Intermediate (master format)
Super 35 (source format)


Printed film format
35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision Premier 2393)
70 mm (IMAX blow-up)


If you don't understand why grain does or does not exist, your best best is to learn about film speed, film stock and lighting conditions.

Also, once it finally hits Blu-Ray, Robert Rodriguez
Privately, he is a BIG proponent of the Blu-ray format and I would hope that he would be gracious enough to go on public record in regards to that.

Something on the order of this…………………….
http://www.hollywoodinhidef.com/inside_detail.php?id=5

would be nice. :)

Privately, he is a BIG proponent of the Blu-ray format and I would hope that he would be gracious enough to go on public record in regards to that.

Something on the order of this…………………….
http://www.hollywoodinhidef.com/inside_detail.php?id=5

would be nice. :)

are the desperado films under sony/buena vista? they had superbit versions i'd imagine we see them on blu-ray as well.