For the uninitiated, Blu-Ray is the natural progression from DVD – the general idea is the same, with the main difference being the amount of data that the disc can store. DVDs have the ability to store up to 4.7 gigabytes per layer, whereas a Blu-Ray disc (or BD, as the industry would prefer us to call it) can store up to 25 gigabytes per layer. The primary reason for all of this is to watch films in high-definition, complete with uncompressed audio. However, the technology is also used for Playstation 3 games, and, once computers catch up, will eventually become a widespread method of storage in the same way that we use CDs and DVDs at present.
Anyway, a couple of months ago I bought a PS3 – which is meant to be one of the better Blu-Ray players on the market even though it’s primarily a games machine – and a 40” Sony Bravia V-Series LCD television. Up to now, I’ve maybe amassed around 15 to 20 Blu-Rays, all of varying quality – and therein lies the rub.
My first purchase, Ghostbusters, is probably the poorest quality Blu-Ray I own. Before I had seen anything in high-definition, I had always wondered how older films would translate into the medium. I had seen hi-def branded cameras being employed on films and big-budget American TV shows, so how would films shot on standard film cameras stand up? In general, it is with the care and attention they take in transferring the film to high-definition which makes the difference. I’m told that there’s nothing higher-definition than film itself, so presumably anything shot on an HD camera simply makes it easier to transfer.
In its external scenes, Ghostbusters looks like it was shot yesterday. However, many of the indoors scenes suffer from a grainy background. This might not sound like much, but when you’re watching a film though the most state-of-the-art technology, this looks really bad. In a few scenes it almost looked like a sandstorm was going on behind the actors. Whether this is due to just a poor Blu-Ray transfer, or whether there was issues with the quality of the original negative, I’m not sure but I almost lost faith right there and then.
So it was a joy to see my second Blu-Ray purchase, Zodiac – to date, probably the best quality high-definition I have seen. I had recently bought the film on DVD and so this served as my showroom example of DVD versus Blu-Ray. After the opening scene, the credits rolls over a sweeping helicopter shot of San Francisco in the sunshine. In hi-def this looks amazing – it’s so clear it almost looks computer generated. On DVD, none of this magic comes through at all.
One of the big things I noticed with Zodiac was the richness of the colour. Presumably to match the look of the period, the interior columns of the San Francisco Chronicle offices are awash with a really golden yellow. This colour is also used for the leather of the chairs in the boardroom. Now usually I wouldn’t watch a film and harp on about the importance of colour (unless I’m watching The Godfather), but this yellow really jumps out – it’s crazy, and yet another example of something that just gets lost in the mix on DVD.
Even Mrs. Popcorn Logic, an initial detractor of Blu-Ray, was blown away by one of Zodiac’s later scenes. As Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo meet up in a diner, the camera frames the booth they’re sitting in. As she quite rightly pointed out, the composition of the picture almost looked as though our television was a window and we were looking inside the diner at them. This might sound a bit far-fetched, but it really can be that clear.
But can such clarity be a problem? Sometimes, yes. In a few of Zodiac’s scenes, when the killer’s face is supposed to be obscured by shadow, the high-definition betrays the films and shows us the face a little too clearly. Ditto with The Departed. In the opening shots of Jack Nicholson running the streets back in his younger days, his face is obscured by shadow – a simple camera trick to avoid them having to spend a fortune on make-up or digital effects to make him look much younger. Again, Blu-Ray takes no prisoners, and shows us his face pretty clearly. The Departed has now become a film where Jack Nicholson doesn’t age.
One of the good things about Blu-Ray is that it gives the studios the chance to repackage their films and bring out bigger and better box-sets. Some might see this as a bad thing (and, of course, it is) but if you love a film, you’re going to want the best possible package available. With my fingers still burning after Ghostbusters, I took the plunge and bought the 5-disc Complete Collector’s Edition of Blade Runner - four versions of the film, and 9 hours of special features. Which begs the question – how many different versions of Blade Runner is too many? Some would say that one is more than enough.
The transfer of Blade Runner into high-definition is sublime. The film looks brand new and if Blu-Ray achieves nothing else, then just to be able to present older films in this way, so that they visually stand up to contemporary films, is justification enough for the technology. Of course, Ridley Scott’s film - “the last great analogue sci-fi film” - is helped by the absence of computer effects. CGI has been so hit and miss over the last 20 years that some of it is going to look really bad in hi-def – I’m thinking Jar Jar Binks in Episode 1 here – and instead of looking real, the effects will just date those films to the last two decades. Blade Runner, on the other hand, now looks timeless.
Also sitting on my shelf is the Ultimate Matrix Collection – all three films, plus The Animatrix and 35 hours of extras, spanned over seven Blu-Ray discs. I was hoping that time would have been kind to The Matrix Reloaded, but it’s still deeply flawed. Although I expect I’ll find the same with the third film, it’s the bonus stuff I’m most interested in.
As for computer animation, I haven’t seen any on Blu-Ray yet. I’ve watched some parts of the Pixar films on DVD – upscaled by the player into quasi-high-definition – and they look fantastic. Up will probably be my first foray into hi-def computer animation – it was so good at the cinema, I’m really looking forward to it at home.
So, all in all, I have some great viewing to catch up on. I seem to be buying Blu-Ray faster than I have chance to watch it, so it’s definitely mounting up. Hmm, maybe I should start saving for one of those 3D televisions...
No comments:
Post a Comment