CODii wrote:The Trunks/Bardock Blu-Ray looked like crap, and based on the information we have there is no reason to believe these will look any better. Remember, unlike the movie Blu-Rays which Funi did a fairly nice job with, the show and the tv specials were filmed in 16mm, not 35mm.
Trunks/Bardock BD can be different in that, those weren't necessarily of the same quality of even the TV masters. In fact... (unless someone knows differently and wants to comment) we don't actually have any idea what the masters for the specials that Funi has are.
Tanooki Kuribo wrote:Gotham22 wrote:It's Blu-ray so of course it will be superior.
If it was on DVD then I'll probbaly be laughing too.
Oh, man. MarcFBR is gonna read that and his fingers won't be able to type fast enough to get all the things he wants to say out, and his brain will explode. Way to go, way to kill Marc.
It'd be pretty hard to make a BD worse than a DVD using any masters that are better than DVD to be honest. Most of the disks that are out that you could say are worse than DVD are argued on endlessly back and forth. It almost has nothing to do with the quality of the masters used, but the amount of filtering used for the BD encode (more than a few people refer to people on the Patton BD as looking like, and I quote 'pudding' because of how blurred details on their faces get.)
A few early Funi BDs would qualify. Frankly, I never watched the Trunks/Bardock BD so I can't say what sort of artificial filtering may or may not have been responsible for any issues. Having it in 4:3 hurts marketing in that, most people just want it to 'fill the TV' regardless of what any of us feel about it. Having it in 4:3 means the filmstock is less zoomed in on though, which can lead to a better quality picture.
Of course, none of that would make my brain explode. Yet another person spouting out that 35mm vs 16mm as a reason the disks won't look as nice as the movie disks like codii is as close as we will get on that, so let's try a more detailed explanation.
The movies were animated 'better' because they had more of an animation budget, not because it was on better quality filmstock.
But perhaps an example would help.
The original Evil Dead was filmed on some of the cheapest 16mm that could be found in the late 70s.
It was filmed on 16mm filmstock in 4:3. So any widescreen release would have to be cropped from 4:3 16mm filmstock.
The Blu-ray of Evil Dead did this. It also provided 4:3 on the same disk for anyone who wanted it.
And there are many screenshots on the net of it.
Let's look at the cropped version...
http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads ... dead58.jpg
http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads ... ead336.jpg
http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads ... ead750.jpg
http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads ... ad1328.jpg
http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads ... ad3452.jpg
http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads ... ad2051.jpg
http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads ... ad4631.jpg
And those are compressed screenshots.
Does it look perfect? Of course not. It's cheap ratty filmstock from the 70s that has been cropped, and the people involved likely couldn't afford cold storage for proper film storage until ...best case... maybe 20 years ago? 15?
The problem with DBZ TV on Blu-ray is not the filmstock, but the detail put into the animation.