BluRay & Animation

I Myself haven't noticed much of a difference in Standard DVD and Bluray when it comes to old school hand-drawn cel animation, not talking CG Enhanced Animation but the stuff we grew up on, like Transformers and joe type animation. Is there really an appreciable difference in quality when it comes to old Animation being viewed on BluRay as opposed to Standard DVD?

I think it depends on the studio and how they approach the animation. I do know some of the older Disney movies being put on Blu-ray are considered the best out there.

Originally Posted by ChaplainAsst

I think it depends on the studio and how they approach the animation. I do know some of the older Disney movies being put on Blu-ray are considered the best out there.

I would kinda expect a little tweaking on Disney Classic Animation, as many of their Animated Titles are Huge Benchmarks in Classic Fairytales/Stories, But your average type everyday cartoon series like say 90's-X-Men, 90's Batman TAS, Robotech/Macross etc., you know, your old Saturday Morning and Afterschool type Cartoon Franchises...would they really benefit from a BluRay Transfer as they look pretty crisp on Standard DVD?

Originally Posted by cliff secord

But your average type everyday cartoon series like say 90's-X-Men, 90's Batman TAS, Robotech/Macross etc., you know, your old Saturday Morning and Afterschool type Cartoon Franchises...would they really benefit from a BluRay Transfer as they look pretty crisp on Standard DVD?

Depends on what the original resolution of the master prints used in the transfer are and at what resolution they're scanned in for the transfer. Ideally, they're using the 35mm prints, which, in digital terms, can carry anywhere between 4 million to 20 million "quality pixels" (not that film has any actual pixels... it's an analog medium but that's how they would be encoded in a digitally scanned image of comparable quality).

NTSC DVD video resolution maxes out at 720 x 480 at 60 progressive frames per second (what people refer to as 480p), which is far below the amount of visual information that film carries (a typical "quality shot" in 35 mm is equivalent to around 3000 x 2000). A Blu-ray player hooked up to one of the newer HDTVs can output video at a theoretical maximum resolution of 1920 x 1080 (what's referred to as 1080p, which carries ~ 2 million pixels), which is still below the average resolution for a quality 35mm shot but is a close enough approximation for most purposes.

Anyway, that's all just minutiae... the short answer is yes, as long as it's being sourced from the original 35mm prints and you're watching it on a screen that can output the maximum resolution for the media in question, a Blu-ray version of a video (whether animation or live-action) will always be superior in terms of resolution and will almost always be significantly superior in subjective visual quality compared to its DVD counterpart. The real question is, is the upgrade in resolution worth the higher cost of Blu-ray media, and that is more of a subjective, case-by-case type of thing. If it's a movie I don't particularly care for and one that I don't plan on rewatching a lot, DVD-level resolution is good enough for me... I mean, just because I can theoretically get <random 1990s cartoon> in 1080p resolution doesn't mean it's automatically worth that much more than a 480p version in terms of the amount of entertainment and enjoyment I can derive from it.

Originally Posted by zuludelta

Depends on what the original resolution of the master prints used in the transfer are and at what resolution they're scanned in for the transfer. Ideally, they're using the 35mm prints, which, in digital terms, can carry anywhere between 4 million to 20 million "quality pixels" (not that film has any actual pixels... it's an analog medium but that's how they would be encoded in a digitally scanned image of comparable quality).

NTSC DVD video resolution maxes out at 720 x 480 at 60 progressive frames per second (what people refer to as 480p), which is far below the amount of visual information that film carries (a typical "quality shot" in 35 mm is equivalent to around 3000 x 2000). A Blu-ray player hooked up to one of the newer HDTVs can output video at a theoretical maximum resolution of 1920 x 1080 (what's referred to as 1080p, which carries ~ 2 million pixels), which is still below the average resolution for a quality 35mm shot but is a close enough approximation for most purposes.

Anyway, that's all just minutiae... the short answer is yes, as long as it's being sourced from the original 35mm prints and you're watching it on a screen that can output the maximum resolution for the media in question, a Blu-ray version of a video (whether animation or live-action) will always be superior in terms of resolution and will almost always be significantly superior in subjective visual quality compared to its DVD counterpart. The real question is, is the upgrade in resolution worth the higher cost of Blu-ray media, and that is more of a subjective, case-by-case type of thing. If it's a movie I don't particularly care for and one that I don't plan on rewatching a lot, DVD-level resolution is good enough for me... I mean, just because I can theoretically get <random 1990s cartoon> in 1080p resolution doesn't mean it's automatically worth that much more than a 480p version in terms of the amount of entertainment and enjoyment I can derive from it.

Interesting...I would'nt have thought there would be that much of a difference in quality considering they were just backlit cels being filmed in rapid succession to create the perception of movement. I failed to realize it involved almost the same image creating techniques that a live action image with depth of field and other such complexities used. It almost seems more involved actually than live action filmed images. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well... I wouldn't exactly say that an animated film will automatically "look better" in Blu-ray compared to DVD. It will definitely be in a higher resolution, and for many people, higher resolution = better subjective picture quality. But the thing about typical animation as compared to live action film is that there aren't as many gradients involved in the colours and the colour palette is generally a lot more limited, so the distinct advantages offered by Blu-ray, such as better gradient and colour differentiation, might not be as big a factor when it comes to animation. But again, it all comes down to subjective perception. The one thing that I can say is definitely fixed and immutable is that Blu-ray will always offer more pixels per area.

Originally Posted by cliff secord

Interesting...I would'nt have thought there would be that much of a difference in quality considering they were just backlit cels being filmed in rapid succession to create the perception of movement.

Keep in mind that even though animation cels are two dimensional images with simulated depth (as opposed to a "live" scene with true depth), those cels are still shot with a 35mm rostrum camera and printed on 35mm film (or in cases of lower quality animation, 16mm or even 8mm). There is going to be a degradation of the image when that film's image is transferred to a lower resolution medium, such as a VHS cassette, a DVD, or a Blu-Ray Disc, although Blu-Ray's maximum resolution is pretty close to the typical resolution of 35mm film compared to other portable media. That being said, I suspect that the differences in resolution aren't going to be as noticeable with certain kinds of cartoons and animation styles. I imagine a flash-animated, Craig McCracken-style cartoon on DVD will look a tad more similar to its BD counterpart, than say, an intensely rendered one like Princess Mononoke.

Originally Posted by zuludelta

Keep in mind that even though animation cels are two dimensional images with simulated depth (as opposed to a "live" scene with true depth), those cels are still shot with a 35mm rostrum camera and printed on 35mm film (or in cases of lower quality animation, 16mm or even 8mm). There is going to be a degradation of the image when that film's image is transferred to a lower resolution medium, such as a VHS cassette, a DVD, or a Blu-Ray Disc, although Blu-Ray's maximum resolution is pretty close to the typical resolution of 35mm film compared to other portable media. That being said, I suspect that the differences in resolution aren't going to be as noticeable with certain kinds of cartoons and animation styles. I imagine a flash-animated, Craig McCracken-style cartoon on DVD will look a tad more similar to its BD counterpart, than say, an intensely rendered one like Princess Mononoke.

I see what you mean...I guess Image degradation is inherent to, and always a factor in the Transfer of Video Images from one medium to another, So I guess BluRay is the best Format for Video Transfer at the current time technically, with the least amount of signal degradation and greater visual data storage capacity-Thanks for schooling me, I always dig tech talk like this, quite informative!

Oh, and another thing. Most current Blu-ray players (including the PS3) already have the ability to "upconvert" regular DVDs from 480i (standard NTSC resolution) to 720p and/or 1080p. What that means is that they "scale up" the resolution of standard (non-HD) video sources by digitally filling in the lines with computed intermediate colours. The result is that regular DVDs look crisper when viewed with these newer Blu-ray players (not as good as an actual Blu-ray disc, but it's a definite improvement over regular DVD). If you don't use HDMI and your BD player is connected to an HDTV via the older component video (Y-Pr-Pb... not to be confused with the low-res composite video standard) or S-Video connections, the differences between an "upconverted" regular DVD and a Blu-ray Disc in terms of clarity might even be a lot less noticeable (which I think is what's going on in your case... didn't you write a post about returning your HDMI cable and hooking up your PS3 to your HDTV via component cables?).

Yup that was me. I have the option of going S-Video, should I go that route instead of component?