ufoclub said:

unique said:

read what the fuck i said. the extras in 2001 are SD video to bluray or HD dvd

you haven't proven a fucking single thing i've said wrong because i've always been fucking right as per fucking normal and you've ever been wrong or not understood a simple fucking question and waffled on about some other irrelevant shite instead

Okay let me extract a frame from the blu-ray vs the DVD. It will take me a little while, I'm in post on 3 videos/animations that are due and because I have to actually install a blu-ray drive into the computer (luckily I happen to have had one sitting around for a year), but once I do I can rip a frame off of both to compare a frame. If you're right than you're right! I think it would be hilarious if they actually just included the same size mpg on the blu-ray which is then upscaled by your player.

I'll post the frame comparison right here when I can get them. If the blu-ray looks better, then you won.

but you can't compare or review the difference between film samples by looking at a freeze frame

for a start you might be taking an interlaced source and comparing it to a progressive source. you can't tell motion blur or anything else from a single frame

this is one of the most basic principles of reviewing video

...technical bullshit

What I really wish is that the Philly show would have been filmed. Longest show of the tour, I was there, it was incredible. I have audio and I SO wish there was video!

Dogsinthetrees said:

...technical bullshit

What I really wish is that the Philly show would have been filmed. Longest show of the tour, I was there, it was incredible. I have audio and I SO wish there was video!

prince records all his shows and usually watched them back afterwards

unique said:

ufoclub said:

Trying to say that 24 = 25 is WRONG. 25 a little bit bigger. If you had a movie that was 60 fps, then that information takes up twice as much room as a movie that is 30 fps even in digital format. If you have a strip of film that is 60 frames long, it is twice as long as a strip of film that is 30 frames long, regardless. You have to push that film twice as fast through the projector to see the same one second of motion, and you need twice as much room on a reel.

Can't you understand that?

i fucking know that and i fucking understand that. but it's not got fuck all to do with anything we've been talking about

don't you fucking read what people are saying to you before you answer?

ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HAS ANYFUCKINGTHINGWHATSOEVER TO DO WITH FILM

and nothing we've been discussing has anything to do with converting running speed, frames, fields or anything like that at all. we aren't talking about converting 24fps film to 25 fps. and if we did, we would STILL HAVE THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF FRAMES, they would just be runing through the motherfucking machine a bit fucking faster whilst the audio plays a bit fucking faster. approximately 4% faster which is approximately a half semitone increase in pitch. but as we aren't talking about a film master, this has fuck all to do with what we are talking about

How can you say this "i fucking know that and i fucking understand that." and then say this "STILL HAVE THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF FRAMES" in the same post? I know this doesn't have anything to do with SD video, but I'm going to correct you on every point you make here that is wrong because I hate when people mislead with publishing incorrect facts. What you should have said was "STILL THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF SECONDS" because that is true. It is not the same amount of frames. you can never say 25 frames is the same as 24 frames. Understand now?

unique said:

ufoclub said:

Okay let me extract a frame from the blu-ray vs the DVD. It will take me a little while, I'm in post on 3 videos/animations that are due and because I have to actually install a blu-ray drive into the computer (luckily I happen to have had one sitting around for a year), but once I do I can rip a frame off of both to compare a frame. If you're right than you're right! I think it would be hilarious if they actually just included the same size mpg on the blu-ray which is then upscaled by your player.

I'll post the frame comparison right here when I can get them. If the blu-ray looks better, then you won.

but you can't compare or review the difference between film samples by looking at a freeze frame

for a start you might be taking an interlaced source and comparing it to a progressive source. you can't tell motion blur or anything else from a single frame

this is one of the most basic principles of reviewing video

The material is going to either be interlaced or progressive on both versions of the 2001 supplemental, so it will be a fair comparison. And certainly you can look at a frozen field, freeze frame, frame seqence, or a snippet of movie to estimate quality. After Effects automatically interpolates a progressive frame when you import an interlaced movie, and it wil do it the same way for both. And then you can zoom in on a face or detail to compare.

Hopefully you have pointed to a interlaced SD video source on the 2001 discs, because that will more accurately match the idea of Lovesexy, because that is interlaced video footage on the pristine master tape. (PAL will be at 50 fields a second/interlaced into 25 fps as it is on the laserdisc or VHS tapes).

But even if they have forced seperate fields together into a progressive interpretation of the Kubrick stuff, or even if the supplemental is a transfer of a film documentary on an SD mastertape with a pulldown, if the blu-ray and the DVD material is from the same mastertape, then it is a valid comparison, because the only difference will be the disc medium (which includes differences of mpeg2 vs mpeg4, etc).

Again, if the blu-ray frames looks better, you win! They might have adjusted the contrast and colors and made it look better in other ways then resolution it will be interesting to see.

ufoclub said:

unique said:

i fucking know that and i fucking understand that. but it's not got fuck all to do with anything we've been talking about

don't you fucking read what people are saying to you before you answer?

ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HAS ANYFUCKINGTHINGWHATSOEVER TO DO WITH FILM

and nothing we've been discussing has anything to do with converting running speed, frames, fields or anything like that at all. we aren't talking about converting 24fps film to 25 fps. and if we did, we would STILL HAVE THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF FRAMES, they would just be runing through the motherfucking machine a bit fucking faster whilst the audio plays a bit fucking faster. approximately 4% faster which is approximately a half semitone increase in pitch. but as we aren't talking about a film master, this has fuck all to do with what we are talking about

How can you say this "i fucking know that and i fucking understand that." and then say this "STILL HAVE THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF FRAMES" in the same post? I know this doesn't have anything to do with SD video, but I'm going to correct you on every point you make here that is wrong because I hate when people mislead with publishing incorrect facts. What you should have said was "STILL THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF SECONDS" because that is true. It is not the same amount of frames. you can never say 25 frames is the same as 24 frames. Understand now?

jesuz fuck, if you don't understand that playing back 24fps material at 25fps does not change the number of fucking frames, then how the fuck do you do a job in the film/video business?

if you change the fucking speed, the number of frames stay the same, but the number of seconds would actually fucking change

how hard is that to grasp?

fucking hell

ufoclub said:

unique said:

but you can't compare or review the difference between film samples by looking at a freeze frame

for a start you might be taking an interlaced source and comparing it to a progressive source. you can't tell motion blur or anything else from a single frame

this is one of the most basic principles of reviewing video

The material is going to either be interlaced or progressive on both versions of the 2001 supplemental, so it will be a fair comparison. And certainly you can look at a frozen field, freeze frame, frame seqence, or a snippet of movie to estimate quality. After Effects automatically interpolates a progressive frame when you import an interlaced movie, and it wil do it the same way for both. And then you can zoom in on a face or detail to compare.

Hopefully you have pointed to a interlaced SD video source on the 2001 discs, because that will more accurately match the idea of Lovesexy, because that is interlaced video footage on the pristine master tape. (PAL will be at 50 fields a second/interlaced into 25 fps as it is on the laserdisc or VHS tapes).

But even if they have forced seperate fields together into a progressive interpretation of the Kubrick stuff, or even if the supplemental is a transfer of a film documentary on an SD mastertape with a pulldown, if the blu-ray and the DVD material is from the same mastertape, then it is a valid comparison, because the only difference will be the disc medium (which includes differences of mpeg2 vs mpeg4, etc).

Again, if the blu-ray frames looks better, you win! They might have adjusted the contrast and colors and made it look better in other ways then resolution it will be interesting to see.

regardless of the outcome of a comparison between an entirely different thing, it has fuck all to do with the outcome of something else entirely?

and comparing a dvd copy of something is entirely different from comparing an original analogue SD recording. the original is going to be in better quality unless it's deteriorated. no one would take the dvd files and just convert them to stick on a bluray. well they might with extras. in fact in some i believe they do, but for a main feature that has no official dvd they would have to go back to the master tape

forgot to swear in that last post, for fucks sake

unique said:

ufoclub said:

How can you say this "i fucking know that and i fucking understand that." and then say this "STILL HAVE THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF FRAMES" in the same post? I know this doesn't have anything to do with SD video, but I'm going to correct you on every point you make here that is wrong because I hate when people mislead with publishing incorrect facts. What you should have said was "STILL THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF SECONDS" because that is true. It is not the same amount of frames. you can never say 25 frames is the same as 24 frames. Understand now?

jesuz fuck, if you don't understand that playing back 24fps material at 25fps does not change the number of fucking frames, then how the fuck do you do a job in the film/video business?

if you change the fucking speed, the number of frames stay the same, but the number of seconds would actually fucking change

how hard is that to grasp?

fucking hell

How can you say that 24 frames a second is the same number of frames as 25 frames a second. One is 24 the other is 25. That is not the same. The time it takes to watch them is the same because one runs faster. But the amount of rames is different.

If a kid runs 24 blocks of sidewalk in 5 minutes and a teenager runs 25 blocks of sidewalk in 5 minutes. There are still more sidewalk blocks in the teenager's run.

You seem to be in a mindblock against speed vs length/file size.

Earlier you said that one second of a 24fps movie = one second of a 25fps movie, and even earlier than that I believe you said one second of 24fps movie took up greater space than one second of 25fps movie. Is this what you're saying? Because it's incorrect on both counts if you are. You are mixing up time with file size or physical length. Yes the time it takes to watch 60fps = 24 fps.

But you can bet a 60fps file is bigger or a 60fps film is longer in physical length.

Maybe you're not typing what you really mean. Because to argue that 24 frames is the same as 25 frames is not logical.

unique said:

ufoclub said:

The material is going to either be interlaced or progressive on both versions of the 2001 supplemental, so it will be a fair comparison. And certainly you can look at a frozen field, freeze frame, frame seqence, or a snippet of movie to estimate quality. After Effects automatically interpolates a progressive frame when you import an interlaced movie, and it wil do it the same way for both. And then you can zoom in on a face or detail to compare.

Hopefully you have pointed to a interlaced SD video source on the 2001 discs, because that will more accurately match the idea of Lovesexy, because that is interlaced video footage on the pristine master tape. (PAL will be at 50 fields a second/interlaced into 25 fps as it is on the laserdisc or VHS tapes).

But even if they have forced seperate fields together into a progressive interpretation of the Kubrick stuff, or even if the supplemental is a transfer of a film documentary on an SD mastertape with a pulldown, if the blu-ray and the DVD material is from the same mastertape, then it is a valid comparison, because the only difference will be the disc medium (which includes differences of mpeg2 vs mpeg4, etc).

Again, if the blu-ray frames looks better, you win! They might have adjusted the contrast and colors and made it look better in other ways then resolution it will be interesting to see.

regardless of the outcome of a comparison between an entirely different thing, it has fuck all to do with the outcome of something else entirely?

and comparing a dvd copy of something is entirely different from comparing an original analogue SD recording. the original is going to be in better quality unless it's deteriorated. no one would take the dvd files and just convert them to stick on a bluray. well they might with extras. in fact in some i believe they do, but for a main feature that has no official dvd they would have to go back to the master tape

what are you talking about? You said that a blu-ray version of an SD video source will be better quality than an DVD version of an SD source. I want to extract frames to see if this is true in reality. You picked a 2001 supplemental as an example. So when I have time, I'll try to extract frames or even a short bit to see. Who knows, maybe you're right!

ufoclub said:

unique said:

jesuz fuck, if you don't understand that playing back 24fps material at 25fps does not change the number of fucking frames, then how the fuck do you do a job in the film/video business?

if you change the fucking speed, the number of frames stay the same, but the number of seconds would actually fucking change

how hard is that to grasp?

fucking hell

How can you say that 24 frames a second is the same number of frames as 25 frames a second. One is 24 the other is 25. That is not the same. The time it takes to watch them is the same because one runs faster. But the amount of rames is different.

If a kid runs 24 blocks of sidewalk in 5 minutes and a teenager runs 25 blocks of sidewalk in 5 minutes. There are still more sidewalk blocks in the teenager's run.

You seem to be in a mindblock against speed vs length/file size.

Earlier you said that one second of a 24fps movie = one second of a 25fps movie, and even earlier than that I believe you said one second of 24fps movie took up greater space than one second of 25fps movie. Is this what you're saying? Because it's incorrect on both counts if you are. You are mixing up time with file size or physical length. Yes the time it takes to watch 60fps = 24 fps.

But you can bet a 60fps file is bigger or a 60fps film is longer in physical length.

Maybe you're not typing what you really mean. Because to argue that 24 frames is the same as 25 frames is not logical.

are you acting like an idiot on purpose?

if you run 24fps material at 25fps you don't get any more or less frames. the material runs faster

if you run 25fps material at 24fps you don't get any more of less frames. the material runs slower

how fucking difficult is that to comprehend?

it's like taking an album and playing it at 45rpm instead of 33rpm. you don't hear any more or less music, you just hear it faster. or if you take a 12" single and play it at 33rpm instead of 45rpm, you don't hear any more or less music, you just hear it slower

when playing 24fps material at 25fps you aren't creating any more frames. you aren't removing frames

that's just fucking simple stuff. and it's how many/most movies are tranferred from film to PAL dvd. they just speed up the film and run the 24fps movie at 25fps. they don't add an extra 1 frame per 24

how can you not understand that?

ufoclub said:

unique said:

regardless of the outcome of a comparison between an entirely different thing, it has fuck all to do with the outcome of something else entirely?

and comparing a dvd copy of something is entirely different from comparing an original analogue SD recording. the original is going to be in better quality unless it's deteriorated. no one would take the dvd files and just convert them to stick on a bluray. well they might with extras. in fact in some i believe they do, but for a main feature that has no official dvd they would have to go back to the master tape

what are you talking about? You said that a blu-ray version of an SD video source will be better quality than an DVD version of an SD source. I want to extract frames to see if this is true in reality. You picked a 2001 supplemental as an example. So when I have time, I'll try to extract frames or even a short bit to see. Who knows, maybe you're right!

is english not your main language or something? or are you new to working with film and video?

it's a very simple explanation. what you are doing is entirely different to what we are talking about. so regardless of the results of your experiement, it doesn't affect the results of what we wer talking about

it's like taking some paint and sticking it on your walls and taking a photo of the colour and posting it online. it's going to look different on my monitor from your monitor as our monitors are calibrated different

and that experiement would have no bearing on my painting my walls in a different colour and taking a photo with a different camera and putting it online and the results looking different on both our monitors

why? because the two things aren't related in the slightest

so forget about all of that and do the math on SD converstion to blueray in all other options apart from 1080p. then those figures will show your original ones were a waste of time, and everything else you've posted on this thread is also a waste of time

face the facts, you were wrong, you tried to gloss it over but you didn't expect other people to know the subject matter and know you were waffling on about irrelevant stuff. you've already admitted it can look better and i quoted you on it

I think you are both talking about different things.

To show a film of 24fps on PAL TV, you don't need to add any frames, but it will go out at 25fps as that is the TV standard.

I think you are getting PAL to NTSC conversion mixed up with talking about film to TV.

With PAL and NTSC you have to either drop frames or lose frames depending on which way round you want to do it...you can't play it faster or slower, frames have to be added or removed.

[Edited 7/19/11 14:01pm]

unique said:

ufoclub said:

what are you talking about? You said that a blu-ray version of an SD video source will be better quality than an DVD version of an SD source. I want to extract frames to see if this is true in reality. You picked a 2001 supplemental as an example. So when I have time, I'll try to extract frames or even a short bit to see. Who knows, maybe you're right!

is english not your main language or something? or are you new to working with film and video?

it's a very simple explanation. what you are doing is entirely different to what we are talking about. so regardless of the results of your experiement, it doesn't affect the results of what we wer talking about

it's like taking some paint and sticking it on your walls and taking a photo of the colour and posting it online. it's going to look different on my monitor from your monitor as our monitors are calibrated different

and that experiement would have no bearing on my painting my walls in a different colour and taking a photo with a different camera and putting it online and the results looking different on both our monitors

why? because the two things aren't related in the slightest

so forget about all of that and do the math on SD converstion to blueray in all other options apart from 1080p. then those figures will show your original ones were a waste of time, and everything else you've posted on this thread is also a waste of time

face the facts, you were wrong, you tried to gloss it over but you didn't expect other people to know the subject matter and know you were waffling on about irrelevant stuff. you've already admitted it can look better and i quoted you on it

Don't chicken out and start shouting! If I get to it and post soon, you can check it on your own monitor. I'll enlarge a detail for clarity and color comparison, complex fine edges are a good indicator.

PS: I can list everything you got wrong through this entire thread. It's very easy. the 24=25 is the craziest.

TheFreakerFantastic said:

I think you are both talking about different things.

To show a film of 24fps on PAL TV, you don't need to add any frames, but it will go out at 25fps as that is the TV standard.

I think you are getting PAL to NTSC conversion mixed up with talking about film to TV.

With PAL and NTSC you have to either drop frames or lose frames depending on which way round you want to do it...you can't play it faster or slower, frames have to be added or removed.

[Edited 7/19/11 14:01pm]

You have brought up something completely different (We're not talking about conversions, at least I'm not) but...

You'd think that PAL would be a nice true conversion all the time. But that's not the case. Forever now, they had pitched movies up from 24fps to 25fps for PAL releases, and the audio is pitched up too. This happened on many old VHS's and laserdiscs and some DVD's. I found this out once with an "Empire Strikes Back" laserdisc.

check it out: "

Converting 24p to PAL

24p material can be converted to the PAL format with the same methods used to convert film to PAL. The most popular method is to speed up the material by 25/24 (4%). Each 24p frame will take the place of two 50i fields. This method incurs no motion artifacts other than the slightly increased speed, which is typically not noticeable. As for audio, the ~4% increase in speed raises the pitch by 0.7 of a semitone, which again typically is not noticed. Sometimes the audio is pitch shifted to restore the original pitch."

or check out this board:

http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-155374.html

But these days with Blu-ray and HD formats, frame rates are the same.

unique said:

ufoclub said:

How can you say that 24 frames a second is the same number of frames as 25 frames a second. One is 24 the other is 25. That is not the same. The time it takes to watch them is the same because one runs faster. But the amount of rames is different.

If a kid runs 24 blocks of sidewalk in 5 minutes and a teenager runs 25 blocks of sidewalk in 5 minutes. There are still more sidewalk blocks in the teenager's run.

You seem to be in a mindblock against speed vs length/file size.

Earlier you said that one second of a 24fps movie = one second of a 25fps movie, and even earlier than that I believe you said one second of 24fps movie took up greater space than one second of 25fps movie. Is this what you're saying? Because it's incorrect on both counts if you are. You are mixing up time with file size or physical length. Yes the time it takes to watch 60fps = 24 fps.

But you can bet a 60fps file is bigger or a 60fps film is longer in physical length.

Maybe you're not typing what you really mean. Because to argue that 24 frames is the same as 25 frames is not logical.

are you acting like an idiot on purpose?

if you run 24fps material at 25fps you don't get any more or less frames. the material runs faster

if you run 25fps material at 24fps you don't get any more of less frames. the material runs slower

how fucking difficult is that to comprehend?

it's like taking an album and playing it at 45rpm instead of 33rpm. you don't hear any more or less music, you just hear it faster. or if you take a 12" single and play it at 33rpm instead of 45rpm, you don't hear any more or less music, you just hear it slower

when playing 24fps material at 25fps you aren't creating any more frames. you aren't removing frames

that's just fucking simple stuff. and it's how many/most movies are tranferred from film to PAL dvd. they just speed up the film and run the 24fps movie at 25fps. they don't add an extra 1 frame per 24

how can you not understand that?

If you take a 45rpm single of say"Let's Go Crazy" there is more information and more groove length then on the 33 rpm version. That's why 45 rpm 12"s have better fidelity. There is a longer groove on the 45 rpm version and the record turns faster to compensate.

You stated that the file size of a 25 frames is less than the file size of 24 frames, and that is wrong. If you render the same movie at 12 fps and then rerender it at 36 fps... the latter file is 3 times the size on your drive. It takes up 3 times the memory. That's what I mean. It doesn't matter how fast you play it. It's a bigger file.

[Edited 7/19/11 15:14pm]

so,how's the petition going? Are we getting alot of signatures? How are we gonna submit it to Prince?

ufoclub said:

unique said:

are you acting like an idiot on purpose?

if you run 24fps material at 25fps you don't get any more or less frames. the material runs faster

if you run 25fps material at 24fps you don't get any more of less frames. the material runs slower

how fucking difficult is that to comprehend?

it's like taking an album and playing it at 45rpm instead of 33rpm. you don't hear any more or less music, you just hear it faster. or if you take a 12" single and play it at 33rpm instead of 45rpm, you don't hear any more or less music, you just hear it slower

when playing 24fps material at 25fps you aren't creating any more frames. you aren't removing frames

that's just fucking simple stuff. and it's how many/most movies are tranferred from film to PAL dvd. they just speed up the film and run the 24fps movie at 25fps. they don't add an extra 1 frame per 24

how can you not understand that?

If you take a 45rpm single of say"Let's Go Crazy" there is more information and more groove length then on the 33 rpm version. That's why 45 rpm 12"s have better fidelity. There is a longer groove on the 45 rpm version and the record turns faster to compensate.

You stated that the file size of a 25 frames is less than the file size of 24 frames, and that is wrong. If you render the same movie at 12 fps and then rerender it at 36 fps... the latter file is 3 times the size on your drive. It takes up 3 times the memory. That's what I mean. It doesn't matter how fast you play it. It's a bigger file.

[Edited 7/19/11 15:14pm]

i think you are just talking shite as a windup. no-one is comparing a 12" to an LP and no-one gives a fucking fuck about converting film to video

all we are talking about is the simple fact that putting lovesexy on bluray from video will be highter quality than dvd. and you confirmed that earlier

so time to move on

Prince should start a new website and sell all the concerts (like Pearl Jam) for $10 each. Includes both audio and video files in the highest quality possible.

802 said:

KeithyT said:

802 said:

Includes both audio and video files in the highest quality possible.

But what is the best video quality. If only we knew of two people who could give their opinions on this issue...

Co-sign. And more live DVDs please! Release the genius of the best live performer of our time!

802 said:

Prince should start a new website and sell all the concerts (like Pearl Jam) for $10 each. Includes both audio and video files in the highest quality possible.

your idea is wise and it makes alot of sense....which is exactly why Prince will never do it

Just release it already Prince!!!!

Let's get a big petition and deliver to Paisley Park!

SoulAlive said:

802 said:

Prince should start a new website and sell all the concerts (like Pearl Jam) for $10 each. Includes both audio and video files in the highest quality possible.

your idea is wise and it makes alot of sense....which is exactly why Prince will never do it

Maybe he will do something like this if he knew how much money he could make!

KeithyT said:

802 said:

Includes both audio and video files in the highest quality possible.

But what is the best video quality. If only we knew of two people who could give their opinions on this issue...

If only....

802 said:

SoulAlive said:

your idea is wise and it makes alot of sense....which is exactly why Prince will never do it

Maybe he will do something like this if he knew how much money he could make!

i think his problem is he thinks he will get ripped off by piracy etc, so he'd rather make no money from it than have other people taking a cut. although right now by not releasing anything he gets no cut and pirates/bootleggers/etc can make money without having official competition

unique said:

ufoclub said:

If you take a 45rpm single of say"Let's Go Crazy" there is more information and more groove length then on the 33 rpm version. That's why 45 rpm 12"s have better fidelity. There is a longer groove on the 45 rpm version and the record turns faster to compensate.

You stated that the file size of a 25 frames is less than the file size of 24 frames, and that is wrong. If you render the same movie at 12 fps and then rerender it at 36 fps... the latter file is 3 times the size on your drive. It takes up 3 times the memory. That's what I mean. It doesn't matter how fast you play it. It's a bigger file.

[Edited 7/19/11 15:14pm]

i think you are just talking shite as a windup. no-one is comparing a 12" to an LP and no-one gives a fucking fuck about converting film to video

all we are talking about is the simple fact that putting lovesexy on bluray from video will be highter quality than dvd. and you confirmed that earlier

so time to move on

You brought up the 33 vs 45 comparison, but I see we are talking about different things. Sorry about that. I thought you were telling me that two different movies of the same motion for the same duration of time at different frame rates were the same thing. What you were actually saying is that the same movie played faster or slower is the same size. You have to understand I'm working on 3 video projects at once, and sometimes don't take the time to carefully read what people are posting on Prince.org.

BUT

But let's move on and get back on track:

ufoclub said:

"You're dealing with limits of pixel information, there is an upward limit of 720 × 576 pixels for a PAL video, and it was shot in 4:3 of course. Pushing it to blu-ray is completely unecessary for image improvement, because the higher bitrate of blu-ray which is still heavily compressed is engineered for a 1920 x 1080 pixel image. And to fill up even the center of an HD image, you would be scaling it up artificially. If you calculate a bitrate per pixel ratio (not just a flat bitrate number), a dual layer DVD pixel is probably just as good as a blu-ray pixel to the eye. But Lovesexy '88 unfortunately was shot on live video PAL technology. It will never truly be anything more than 720 x 576. But you're right on about the sound being better on blu-ray with the potential for a PCM or even Master Audio format available."

unique replied: "you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. PAL doesn't have a pixel resolution and neither does film you can get higher quality picture and sound on blueray from SD and film sources"

Right away, you presented incorrect information:
1. PAL has a limited resolution and it is 720 x 576 pixels in a digital terms. In analog terms it is measured in lines. Look it up. Rip a PAL DVD and check the specs of the movie.
2. You compared transferring SD video (limited to 414 thousand pixel area) to to transferring 35mm film (conversions starting at 3 million pixels and going way up depending on size of film grain) as both equivalently gaining advantage going to blu-ray. This is ineffective based on the resolution limitation of PAL. Of course blu-ray is good for filmed movies. Of course it is not doing anything of consequence for SD video.

unique said:
"but picture quality isn't measured by adding pixels. it's measured by sight and how it looks."

So I'm offering to put up a frame or even a clip for comparison between professional released SD video that is both on DVD and Blu-ray.

unique replied: "but you can't compare or review the difference between film samples by looking at a freeze frame. for a start you might be taking an interlaced source and comparing it to a progressive source. you can't tell motion blur or anything else from a single frame. this is one of the most basic principles of reviewing video"

Here you start waffling on about interlaced vs progressive and motion blur, completely irrelevant because both samples will be from the same SD source, so it's comparable regardless of status any of those factors. It is the same material on both mediums. Any videophile site or professional textbook on image quality offers still frames and close ups of details for comparison.

ufoclub said: "By the way the pixel resolution for widescreen vs 4:3 on DVD is the same. The widescreen version is just programmed to stretch the pixels horizontally."

unique replied: "furthermore, you also said that 4:3 material on dvd stretches across the screen pixel wise, which is complete shite. an anamorphic encoding would "stretch" the image down the screen, but you don't get anamorphic 4:3 material, so fuck knows wtf you are on about there."

Here you read wrong and freaked out. I said the widescreen version is stretched pixels. And yes both widescreen and 4:3 are the same pixel resolution. Anyone can look this up.

Then in response to Rorywan saying that beta was better than DVD resolution

ufoclub said: "If converted to absolute pixels, NTSC betacam is 720 x 486 vs DVD 720 x 480. If Lovesexy were shot with digicams in PAL format, then maybe for those few extra pixels you could argue that."

unique replied:"you are basically saying that i was fucking right in the first fucking place and you can get better quality on bluray"

WRONG. The point I was making was the it was NOT shot on dig betacam, it was shot on analog PAL video. Who knows what overscan compensation there was? You could have lost pixels on each edge. I found this educated piece online:

http://www.flyingpictureslive.com/cameras/DV-BetaSP.html
check it out.
Both you and Rorywan are wrong in your interpretation of what I said. You missed that one important word "DIGI-betacam" and even then I cited an educated source that says that analog beta is slightly inferior to a DV (same resolution as DVD format picture).

This is why feature SD video productions don't seem to be put onto blu-ray. You cited supplementals where all they were doing was taking the material form the DVD and putting it to the blu-ray edition in order to match the feature set of the DVD release. If blu-ray did offer discernably better vehicle to present SD video, then wouldn't there be SD videos being put out on blu-ray?

Check out this thread:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/wish-lists/59496-why-no-doctor-who-blu.html

This is all well and good, but do you actually WANT TO SEE IT RELEASED?

Seems to be going off topic, that's all:-D