More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ridley Scott

GET UPDATES FROM Ridley Scott
 

The Only Way to See a Film

Posted: 12/06/11 03:24 PM ET

Technology continues to bring us wondrous advances in filmmaking to improve how we view movies.

While it's exciting to consider the possibilities stemming from this era of innovation -- which directors and futurists for decades have envisioned -- that allows us to watch a movie "anywhere, anytime," the more preoccupied we become with the technologies of how movies can reach us, the less we seem to ask the most important question: How do we really want to experience a film?

In my view, the only way to see a film remains the way the filmmaker intended: inside a large movie theater with great sound and pristine picture. Music and dialogue that doesn't fully reproduce the soundtrack of the original loses an essential element for its appreciation. Simply put, the film loses its power.

Short of that, the technically sophisticated Blu-ray disc, of which I've been a supporter since its inception, is the closest we've come to replicating the best theatrical viewing experience I've ever seen. It allows us to present in a person's living room films in their original form with proper colors, aspect ratio, sound quality, and, perhaps most importantly, startling clarity.

Which is why it has never made sense to me that those preoccupied with how movies are delivered have for years written off "physical media" (i.e., movies on discs) as "dead" even though the evidence shows it isn't happening and won't for years to come. Technology will need to make many more huge leaps before one can ever view films with the level of picture and sound quality many film lovers demand without having to slide a disc into a player, especially with the technical requirements of today's 3D movies.

Granted, the older DVD technology is phasing out. But it is yielding to the Blu-ray just as videocassettes once gave way to the technically superior DVD. This is evolution. Far from being dead, physical media has years of life left and must be preserved because there is no better alternative. Pundits aside, Blu-ray for the foreseeable future remains the finest technology to preserve the impact and enjoyment of watching movies at home.

We've come a long way from those flickering, silent screens which were accompanied only by a person playing a piano. What has remained constant is that people then and now have always sought out the magic one feels after watching a truly memorable film. For movie lovers it doesn't matter whether that magic comes at a theater or through a disc, an electronic stream, a satellite or a wireless device as long as it is delivered through the best possible experience.

Ridley Scott is a three-time Oscar nominated filmmaker, producer and director. His next film project, Prometheus, is scheduled to be released next year by 20th Century Fox.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 370
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
05:30 PM on 01/04/2012
Once again an artist that defend an old media and a stupid system just because he is in the hands of bussinesmen that is so afraid loosing money that they actually fox it all up and loosing even more...
They should try learn the same hard lesson that the music industry did some years ago.
05:04 PM on 12/26/2011
Scott is right. Blade Runner on Blu-ray is an absolutely stunning audio/visual experience. I've seen 70mm screenings of that movie in the theater, and the Blu-ray captures the look and feel of those screenings. On a properly calibrated HDTV, Blade Runner on Blu-ray retains the organic and textured look of good film projection -- something that can't be said for DVD or other broadcast and streaming sources. Ridley Scott had a hand in the film transfer and restoration for that particular release, so he knows what he's talking about.

Netflix is convenient, but even the so-called HD mode washes out the detail, softens up the image, and still has a lot of macroblocking and pixelation. Same thing goes for HD broadcasts and "1080p" downloads. Anyone who thinks that all 1080p sources are created equal needs to do some direct comparisons with Blu-ray, and see for themselves. Streaming and downloading sources have a long way to go before they can equal what Blu-ray already delivers.
11:02 AM on 12/21/2011
Time is now for HDTV and you can download High Definition movies from Itunes and other sites. These can be stored on a hard drive like a MacMini from apple and play them back in 1080P over an HDMI cable. The era of hard copy is rapidly coming to a close. The writer is correct about netflics they do not stream HD information another reason to drop them, but others do. It requires you have at least about 20mb download speeds or you will get the dreaded buffering notice. I love Blu-Rays that is why I bought a player and used to get the bluray's in the mail from netflics before they got greedy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steven Kippel
01:18 PM on 12/21/2011
There's a huge difference between the compression schemes used for 1080p video on BD and on streaming.
03:46 PM on 12/21/2011
Yes there is but that is not what I said. I said that you can "download" HD content without having a disc and get the same quality as a bluray but what you don't get is that BD live junk. Download a HD copy of a movie from Itunes or stream a HDX from Vudu if you are running over 20mb speed and watch it using a HDMI connection and check out the difference.
07:58 AM on 12/17/2011
Some people who only have bad things to say about bluray never really experienced having one, seen one, or heard one.

Once you decide to pursue bluray quality, prepare yourself to shed some amount of money that could potentially hurt your pocket. Bluray in a mediocre system is not bluray at all. Maybe that's why people complain about it not having met their expectations.

For a bluray that costs $15, you should have at least:

1. A high end blu-ray player with excellent video graphics capability (PS3 is excellent but not top of the line)
2. A high end receiver (Onkyo, Yamaha, Pioneer, Marantz, Denon) to decode the formats, especially the audio sent by the player
3. A very good stereo system
4. An equally good center channel speaker
5. Excellent surround spreakers
6. Powerful and good subwoofer (SVS, Hsu Research, Epik, etc)
7. At least a 50-inch TV
8. High quality cables

A total of about $ 7,000.

Bluray is not bluray unless you have these gears. Until then, be content with DVD and its crappy quality.
04:36 PM on 12/26/2011
Utter nonsense. You don't need a $7,000 system to derive significant benefits from going to Blu-ray.

The picture quality of Blu-ray, compared to DVD or with other more compressed 1080p/i/720p HD formats, is readily apparent on any HDTV of about 42" and above. No more pixelation, no more soft images ... doesn't take a fancy TV or a fancy Blu-ray player. Any Blu-ray player from a legitimate manufacturer will have excellent picture quality, and blow away any existing consumer-grade source.

As for the audio quality, Blu-ray delivers significant improvement by simply allowing for higher bitrates on standard Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks. The higher bitrates are backwards compatible with any home theater receiver with a standard DD/DTS decoder. Going to 640k DD and 1.5k DTS is a noticeable step up in audio quality compared to the lower bitrates used in DVDs. And it can all be used with existing equipment.

Advising people to stick with DVD until they spend thousands of dollars and have all high end components for their video and audio chains is just plain idiotic. If someone already has a HDTV, simply adding a $100 Blu-ray will instantly give them the highest available picture quality for movie viewing. Other improvements can be had with simple incremental upgrades.

In actuality, the best thing that people can do to maximize their enjoyment of Blu-ray is to simply calibrate their TV, and properly setup their audio system.
06:25 PM on 01/04/2012
Yeah I'm going to say Ramirez's comment is bull. It's very noticeable on a 42in TV; I've never considered myself a audio/videophile, and am content with DVD quality if that's all I have (I didn't upgrade most my DVDs to blu-ray, just ones I know make a difference), but there is a big difference.

A nice sound system does make it easier to notice the difference; however, that doesn't have to cost a fortune. Ever watch a DVD and think the sound is kinda muddy, even just a little? Yeah, because while its not horrible, its not great either. With blu-ray, those flaws don't typically exist as readily, because its that much closer to the original.

Good HDTVs are cheaper than they've ever been, and even a sub-$1000 TV can have amazing clarity; even the $500 TVs will see a benefit switching to Blu-Ray.

I'm not going to discount streaming HD, its come a LONG way, and it does look pretty amazing, particularly for shows, but for large HDTV's, blu-ray is much better.

I don't like theaters, because people are irritating, they talk/cough/sneeze/text/etc in theaters. Blu-ray is amazing because you can actually make a decent home theater system.

Ramirez lost any credibility when he said high-end cables; HDMI unless ran for long distances doesn't suffer degredation and doesn't need high-end cables (the $2 work just as well).
03:09 PM on 12/15/2011
The sound of a Blu Ray has the"potential" to be much better too. Compact Disk is old technology limited to 16 bit 44.1kHz. Blu Ray can go higher. If you buy a good concert video (try John Mayer's concert video) you'll see on the Blu Ray box that the sound either Dolby HD sound or 24bit 96kHz. The difference in sound quality is as big as the difference in the picture quality of a VHS tape and Blu Ray.

I say "potentially" because there are two points where the sound quality that can be lost. First is how the studio does the transfer to the Blu Ray disk. There are examples where it is obvious that the studio did not take advantage of 24/96 technology or simply blew the sound transfer. An example of bad sound is the J.J. Abrams Star Trek restart. The other point is the sound system you purchase. Don't expect quality sound from a $700 all-in-one solution. You have to invest the time to find a good 5.1 or 7.1 system. Start by reading a few home theater magazines. Then listen to a sound system they recommend in your price range. You can spend many times more money on the sound system than the TV. A half-way decent system will cost at least $2,000. That money will be a good investment towards a great home theater experience.
05:37 PM on 12/14/2011
I still watch a lot of films on laserdisc (blu-ray is a money making scam)
02:34 PM on 12/14/2011
Honestly we just upgraded to a bluray and I don't see any difference between a bluray version and the old. I didn't see much difference when we got a HD TV set up. Of course my husband says he sees a huge difference but that could be just to justify the cost. LOL!
05:08 PM on 12/13/2011
The reason people are not going to theaters is all the other things that go on; cell phones ringing, children screaming, people right next to you talking, people behind you giving away the plot and then there is the costs.
Popcorn and drinks are out of sight. It wouldn't take too many trips to pay for a Blue Ray player. You could buy the DVD and watch it as many times as you want without the distractions. The producers need to work on a way to keep the audience from ruining the movie. Stop the audience from taking away from the movie and reduce the costs. Then people will flock to the theater again.
12:19 PM on 12/14/2011
Dead on. I'd love to see movies in the theater still -- but the audience has become the enemy to me (#@$! cellphones -- some people even taking the call, unbelievable; unruly kids AND adults, talkative people, etc) as well as the exorbitant costs of both tickets and concessions.
05:01 PM on 12/13/2011
The problem is that people aren't really movie fans. Just like sports, where teams are popular because of casual fans, not the die hards. Most people when they watch a movie are just doing so to pass a couple hours. I mean look at pan & scan. I had to overpay and go out of my way to watch movies in widescreen on VHS, and when DVD came along you had lots of people complaining about the bars over and over, not getting the point of widescreen.

I don't know how many times I've walked in on family or friends watching something on cable where either the network or their TV has the picture distorted in the wrong ratio. I can't stand it, but they don't care. Let alone watching a movie without any home theatre. Why would that type of person care about picture or sound quality when they've shown they don't?

No one can argue that blu ray with a proper set up is the best way to view movies at home, but it's falling on deaf ears. You can argue all you want about how great a specific steak dinner is at a fantastic restaurant, but if people are fine cramming Big Macs down their throat, it's almost a lost cause.
03:45 AM on 12/14/2011
I'm a die-hard movie fan/audiophile and we spent years scraping together the cash for the 7.2 it was worth it but one thing I must point out is that even for the dedicated surround sound setup is a steep learning curve. Many people that buy home theater don't have it set up correctly. I'm told they say it can make a huge difference to your sound system if you hire a professional sound engineer to calibrate your system, plus a lot of people don't understand the technical jargon, they don't understand that THX is not a surround format for example, some guys want the Home Theater but their nagging wife won't let them have one, plus you can't take it with you which would be difficult for people who work long hours, so I suggest it's not that most people wouldn't think surround was awesome if they heard it but it probably fails for the same reason Quadraphonic sound failed in the 70's, cost and complexity. BTW I wouldn't consider my brother an Audiophile, but even he thought Blu-Ray sound quality was way better than DVD. Get the movie Die Hard 4.0, it's an average movie but the sound is AWESOME!
08:04 AM on 12/17/2011
I did exactly just that. The story is crappy but the sound is to-die-for.
03:52 PM on 12/13/2011
I don't get it. New movie theaters show digital (non-physical) movies on the screen all the time. The 'film' is gone. Am I mistaken? Aren't new systems equipped with an all-digital projection system? How is this different than ripping a bunch of blu rays to a hard drive and being able to watch them on a large (46" and above) HDTV? I have a 7.1 sound system, and the ripped movies include all of that data.
03:56 PM on 12/14/2011
I think their point is that Netflix and Hulu type of movie streaming can't replicate the same quality experience a Blu-ray (or an equivalent high quality medium) film can. I don't think they meant to compare a physical Blu-ray with an essentially identical file on a hard disk. :)
08:06 AM on 12/17/2011
There is a big difference between a ripped bluray (usually around 4.5 GB) and an actual bluray. First, rips that small (BD is usually around 45 GB) are darker on big screens and lacking some resolution. Second, the sound is somewhat low and lacking in resolution. Third, it is stealing.
03:17 PM on 12/13/2011
Good Cinema should be seen @ movie theater, & bad Cinema stinks on any medium!
@ $20 a pop I would not replace movies I already own on DVD!
The picture on newer movies look a lot better on Blue-ray & I say if you want to get Avatar on DVD, Blue-Ray is a better option. If a movie was shot 70mm like Lawrence of Arabia maybe, but for 99% of what comes out of Hollywood the DVD picture is more than sufficient!
DTS & Dolby Surround Sound on older DVDs are not inferior to what Blue-ray offers!
08:09 AM on 12/17/2011
Yeah, I agree. And Gladiator is no exception. There was hardly any difference between the DVD and the bluray versions when it came to PQ (I have both. Actually I also have a ripped version), only that the audio was a lot better on bluray.
04:48 PM on 12/18/2011
I believe BLU-RAY is a Holywood Scam ot increase their profitability!
04:46 PM on 12/18/2011
BLU-RAY is a Hollywood Scam to take your MONEY ($) !
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steven Kippel
01:22 PM on 12/21/2011
How is providing a higher-quality product a scam?
03:11 PM on 12/13/2011
My old 1980's TV got a pretty good picture and sound, and my old VHS-Movies still got good quality, sometimes i feel that my VHS can give me a better filmexperience than a DVD. Movie Magic doesn't need the latest technology, it need love
08:11 AM on 12/17/2011
Of course. And a poor eyesight and ear to really not appreciate what's the latest technology has to offer.
02:58 PM on 12/13/2011
I get the convenience of digital movies & streaming but it's just no match for bluray. it's not that it's a bad idea...i mean it'd be great if everyone had streaming tvs that deliver bluray quality and have a blu-ray quality download option and everyone had massive amounts of space on their hard drives to download thousands of bluray quality movies on it and you could access your movies from everywhere whether streaming or using your storage device...but we're nowhere near that point...at all. it'll be a long time to get everyone on that page.

but how about just staying at dvd-ish quality streaming and digital downloads? well...yes, there are a lot of people who don't care about quality and don't mind watching blockbuster movies as a shaky bootleg copy that they're streaming from their cell phone...but i don't think they're gonna be the ones who push the next evolution of film medium. some are fine with low quality streams/downloads, others will never be fine with low quality streams/downloads cuz they already love their HD picture and won't want to go backwards. so when the technology catches up to bluray and can provide same quality & convenience, then we can really have this discussion, but it'll be a long while.
02:00 PM on 12/13/2011
Agree completely. On my 110" screen at home, the HD streaming on Netflix doesn't come close tot he quality of a good Blu-Ray disc.
01:55 PM on 12/13/2011
It is true. I am a hifi fan too, and its a fact about 94% of people have not heard music as it was made, due to low quality electronics in their music machines (i call it that as hifi is better quality). But when i ask people most say, 'i hear it fine'. So same with films. I have done alot to my tv with M&K surround off a separates amps, all earthed with their own earth and their own dedicated feed off supply (to the chagrin of my neighbourly electrician). The quality is fab, and you get into the film so much more. I only buy massive films that get into the bluray experience - such as Bournes, new James Bonds, MI3, Gladiator. Orhers i just rent. But god is it good. I love Bluray