I own the very first DVD this movie ever got released, which was in 1997. And after 25 years, it still looks good (kudos to an HDTV and an upscaling DVD player with an HDMI cable).
Does anyone think DVDs from the late 90's/early 2000's look better than DVDs from the mid-2000's and onwards or vice-versa? I understand technology changes over the years.
I got this way back in the day too. It looked like dogshit for a long time, even with an upscaler DVD player. The 4K screen improved it a little, but it wasn't until I bought the iTunes version and that looks amazing. It's a fun movie that holds up pretty well still.
shareWith the DVD ripping app MakeMKV and the file analyzing app MediaInfo, the raw file is in progressive scan. No doubt it still looks good after all these years.
shareThe only differences I noted with 90s dvd's compared to later models was that they were extremely simple in programming. All they had was the main menu, the film, and chapters to visit if you wanted to go to a specific part of the movie. Things got more elaborate after the Millennium, when dvd's became more mainstream. Current dvd's with older films (particularly the cheap ones) follow a similar format to 90s dvd's.
shareGood to know, good to know.
shareThis is likely why earlier DVDs from the 90s look better. The extras, elaborate menus, and commentaries take up space that can otherwise be used for video quality. By the end of the golden era for DVDs, those things got out of control. Saving space for video bitrate was the concept behind the Superbit DVDs.
Superbit discs can be read by all regular DVD video players, but their film files were encoded at a bit rate that is, according to Sony, approximately 1.5 times as high (6-7 Mbit/s vs 4-5 Mbit/s) as that of standard DVDs, which helps minimize artifacts caused by video compression and allow the image to be pre-filtered less prior to compression, which results in more detail. Superbit should not be confused with either Blu-ray or HD DVD discs, both of which are different media formats of much higher bit rate and resolution, and are incompatible with standard DVD video players.share
To maximize space for the main feature, static menus are used and commentary tracks are removed.
The Fifth Element Superbit DVD is better than the Bluray disc.
The DVD used to be standard reference material for evaluating a display. The Bluray disc was hotly anticipated prior to release. The disappointment was incredible. Owners began referring to it as the Blurry disc.
If someone expected the quality jump from DVD to Blu-Ray that we saw from VHS to DVD then I can understand why they were disappointed. But Blu-Ray is indisputably better and it's not even close.
For me, the real disappointment has been Blu-Ray to 4K Blu-Ray. Maybe it's because my TV is only 43" but I can rarely tell a difference between 1080p and 4K.
No doubt that Bluray is better than DVD. Much better. However, The Fifth Element was botched in its implementation and it was notable because of the anticipation around it. My example was specific to that.
shareit's mos def your TV, bro
mmmmmmeeehh... I think people get nostalgic for "fuzzy" "film like looking" low res video, and much of the newer stuff is much sharper and clearer, loosing that "film look", which is total fallacy.
Like what you like, but movies are presented VISUALLY, so clearer, sharper will always support the intended narrative better.
unless the goal is to look crappy like the 60s or something.
I may be mistaken, but the OP is comparing DVD to DVD from earlier discs to later discs. Apples to apples, before Bluray and 4K streaming.
shareI think newer DVDs got better and better at mastering - higher res masters, meaning they should LOOK better. but I haven't done personal comparisons.
so, I'm saying people could think the old ones look smoother, when really its just older/fuzzier.
just a thought.
Without doing a direct A/B comparison, my memory tells me that all the added features, commentary, interactive menus, and "fluff" of the later DVDs limited the space available for high bitrate DVDs.
I was a fan of the Superbit discs for this reason.
Superbit discs can be read by all regular DVD video players, but their film files were encoded at a bit rate that is, according to Sony, approximately 1.5 times as high (6-7 Mbit/s vs 4-5 Mbit/s) as that of standard DVDs, which helps minimize artifacts caused by video compression and allow the image to be pre-filtered less prior to compression, which results in more detail...share
To maximize space for the main feature, static menus are used and commentary tracks are removed.
I still rent DVDs from Redbox and even today I find that the quality can vary substantially. Most of the time they don't look great, but every once in a while I'll run across a DVD that looks so good that you could tell me it was a Blu-Ray and I wouldn't argue with you. I'm not sure what makes the difference.
shareTHIS IS WRONG....FILMS WERE MADE TO BE SHOWN ON THE FORMAT AVAILABLE WHEN THEY WERE MADE...ANY FILM MADE IN THE 1990S OR BEFORE WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE SEEN IN HD...WHILE CLEANING THE FILM UP IS FINE...A LOT OF THE TIME IT REVEALS MISTAKES AND ODDITIES NEVER MEANT TO BE SEEN.
shareMovies made in the 1990s and before--clear back to the 19-teens--were meant to be high-definition, and they look that way when they're projected properly on a theater screen, or presented on a high-quality disc or streaming platform. Beginning in the 1950s some big-budget movies were shot on 70mm film, making them even more high-definition than the average. The same is true of 1950s through 1990s television shows that were shot on 35mm film. HD is not new. It's just relatively new to home-viewing.
shareI still have that same DVD too. It's been scratched to shit and is barely watchable now. I thought it was funny that the DVD menu only pops up after the end credits, and you can only pick from random scenes (like scenes 1, 4, 7, 12, 17 etc)
share