What's funny is I only recently bought a BR drive for my computer. So, suddenly, I Am interested in BR.
A few months ago, I would have skimmed past any reference to BR.
It's probably the last "standard" physical consumer format we're going to have for movies/home media. So I've been buying quite a lot of old favorites on blu-ray lately.
The other thing is that with animation, watching it on Blu-Ray lets you see a lot of cel detail and things you won't notice as much on lower resolution transfers. Watching Vampire Hunter D in HD for example, I saw a lot of fine detail that on DVD or Laserdisc would have been too low res to make out. It also shows you more imperfections, grain, and dirt. But I think that's part of the fun of it.
Now when movies are mastered like garbage, that's another issue entirely.
Yeah, I don't mind seeing the imperfections (it's akin to playing a record). The imperfections are *part* of the experience.
ASIDE: But seeing them as "imperfections" is just one way to look at it—it is also touches on our quest for "purity" (see below).
However, poor mastering is unacceptable. Or lazy transfers.
I have a bunch of movies (Dvd) where the subtitles are permanently on the film itself (instead of data track allowing you to turn captions on/off). The transfer looks like they pulled it from the damn SVHS version (which I already had)...
...anyway, this was from the dawn of DVD and I think a lot of early DVDs cheaply done (especially foreign films).
Why do I bring this up?
I'm OK with pops and scratches on a BR...
...but it does take away some of the magic of the film.
*ASIDE: I made a similar argument with RGB vs composite: some games just look aesthetically "better" when color/graphics morph into something unique (less perfect) on a standard CRT. I argued that the intended destination was the canvas artists were painting for—regular consumers with standard television/inputs...when you compare the same game on RGB + monitor, the sharp (often harsher) pixels provide a distinctly different aesthetic, one that often "takes away the magic" (more sterile) because pixel artists used tricks to make a sterile, unrecognizable block of four pixels transform into a recognizable character's face on a standard television.
Ok, I'll stop.
The point is: restoration projects that clean up source material without corrupting/altering the original content are good. But, if that is not going to happen, I am willing to put up with the sterile, harsh imperfections of the original.
However, I do wonder how much "magic" is lost in our quest for "purity"—be it purity of RGB signal, or the purity of literally capturing all the specks of dirt and film grain in a film.
Am I silly for suggesting that consumes should have the option to use filters (beyond the standard settings in TV) to intentionally *downgrade* an image...say by offering a "smart blur" (PhotoShop filter) that would hide the dirt and grain?
I know emulators have various filters, but I am talking about a different set of filters specific to viewing TV vs film content.
Consumer would always buy the purest source...but then have ability to modify it. Seems like the best of both worlds (content providers could even have their "suggested filters" activated by default, so only the video enthusiast would have to tinker around, if he/she was so inclined).
Ok, I'll stop.
