Page 1 of Is there any point in buying a blu-ray of an older film?

As you may know, I`m a fan of Ghostbusters, hence my previous moniker. I own the collector`s edition DVD, which was actually one of the first DVDs I ever owned. I`ve often toyed with the idea of double-dipping for the BR, but given the age of the film, would the master quality be good enough to justofy the purchase?

I recently bought the original Keaton/Nicholson Batman a few months ago, and frankly, was so unimpressed, I got rid before watching the whole thing (with the quality and the movie, god it`s awful). Would the producers of the blu-ray have gone to the trouble of digging up the 30 year old master and making the BR from there, or would they have just upscaled the DVD version to 1080 and charged an extra tenner? (Not just GB, but any older movie)

============================


Writer`s Release

There are a lot of older movies which look absolutely phenomenal in HD, but as you observe a lot depends on the materials used to master the release.  I`ve been blown away by the quality of recent releases like Jaws and Lawrence of Arabia, but there have been some dodgy releases as well (I`m looking at you, Universal for your Hitchcock collection).  The Universal Monsters Boxset on the other hand is gobsmackingly sharp compared to the old DVD "Legacy" boxset, and for the original 1931 Dracula is nothing shy of miraculous.  That perennial favourite The Wizard of Oz is like watching a new movie in HD.  If a movie is a high-profile legacy release, most times they will be a significant improvement on the DVD, but there are always exceptions

I`m currently looking forward to the Blu-ray release of Singin` In The Rain.

Keaton Batman - the DVD was appalling as well.

The Ghostbusters Blu is a head and shoulders improvement over the old DVD (at the moment I can`t put my hand on the DVD for a side-to-side comparison, but when I got the Blu I was very impressed) - with one caveat.

Grain.

Some people are grainphobic.  I`m not.  Ghostbusters was shot in 1984 on Eastman 5384 negative.  It wasn`t shot on the latest Red, Arriflex D-21 or Panavision Genesis.  It was shot on film, in an era when movies had grain.  Ghostbusters has grain.  Acceptable, normal-for-the-time grain that`s more noticeable in night-time shots (as it should be).  Therefore it looks like a movie, not a video.  For what it`s worth, Robert A Harris (the restorer of My Fair Lady and Lawrence of Arabia and professionally one of the toughest critics of substandard releases) gave the movie his recommendation in his Home Theater Forum thread.  I concur.

J Mark Oates

I was wondering if that universal Monsters boxset was worth the money, so thanks for the recommendation there, Mark.

I`d like to add one of my own - the Blu Ray of Forbidden Planet is amazing. That movie looks like it was made yesterday, a joy to watch. And there are so many (standard def, obviously) extras on the disc, including The Invisible Boy, the other film that starred Robbie the Robot, in its entirety plus some superb documentaries and TV clips. I watched the lot, and love that disc!!!

Pick up Zulu, that was the first time I picked up an older film on the format.  The colour and detail on that is amazing.

Quote:
Mark Oates says...
Grain.

Some people are grainphobic.  I`m not. 
Yep, I`m one of those.  I was overly disappointed with Bullit, which looks really good other than loads of grain on the frame.  I want a nice clear picture and although I know it`s deliberate, I can`t for the life of me understand why. 

---------

Si Wooldridge
Reviewer

http://synth.myreviewer.com

Most modern TV`s have something like Tru-motion, frame interpolation thingy that turns what you`re watching to plastic, and in the process eliminates grain completely. They need to make that tunable to user preferences rather than just on/off, and then leave all the old film Blus, with 100% grain intact rather than DNRing them before release. Then it would be up to the viewer how much, or how little grain to watch them with.

===========================
Jitendar Canth

Quote:
"I thought what I`d do was, I`d pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes."

Site Reviewer at DVD Reviewer & MyReviewer

Carving out a niche with a pneumatic drill at Anime @ MyReviewer.com

Bullitt was, apparently, a problematic release. Shot on Eastman 5254, the grain is inherent in the image and WB elected not to apply DVNR to scrub out the grain. Unfortunately, according to some sources, they trimmed some "flash frames" which annoyed purists.

If you`ll pardon me a rant - Trumotion is an abomination that only has a place in viewing sport or old video recordings. If you have it on your telly, switch it off for watching Blu-rays and DVDs as it only introduces a shedload of its own motion artefacts.

J Mark Oates

This item was edited on Sunday, 4th November 2012, 15:17

If you listen carefully you may hear the sound of my head banging slowly against a wall. Short answer, yes. This subject came up so often I ended up writing an article about it with a few screen capture comparisons. For the record, there are hardly any BDs that are simply upscaled from SD masters. I`ve seen a couple, but that`s among thousands.

Quote:
Yep, I`m one of those. I was overly disappointed with Bullit, which looks really good other than loads of grain on the frame. I want a nice clear picture and although I know it`s deliberate, I can`t for the life of me understand why. It`s deliberate because there was no other way of doing it. Film is comprised of grain; you wouldn`t see an image without it. Digital video is different, but it has completely different characteristics to film.

Quote:
Most modern TV`s have something like Tru-motion, frame interpolation thingy that turns what you`re watching to plastic, and in the process eliminates grain completely. They need to make that tunable to user preferences rather than just on/off, and then leave all the old film Blus, with 100% grain intact rather than DNRing them before release. Then it would be up to the viewer how much, or how little grain to watch them with.Tru-Motion is (as the name suggests) is a form of motion compensation. It has nowt to do with grain reduction. What is does is interpolate frames to remove 24p judder, which makes films look like they were shot on video. Most TVs have some sort of DNR feature, which is often labelled just that.







My Blu-ray Screenshot Site

This item was edited on Sunday, 4th November 2012, 21:28

One particularly brilliant example of restoration for Bluray release:

http://www.dvdreviewer.co.uk/Forums/DVDs-and-Films/t814438/Alien-Anthology-Bluray-set/page1

The new Terminator Bluray is also stunning.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/148355
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/148357
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/148359
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/148362

I did have the Alien Anthology on DVD,. but traded it in recently, mainly because I only really watched Aliens, and mentioned on the other thread, the quality was deffo sub-par, even after upscaling. If I was to double-dip I`d probably only buy that one again. Alien is good, but it`s not what I`d call entertaining anymore. Good news about the GB blu-ray. Maybe for xmas I`ll treat myself

============================


Writer`s Release

This item was edited on Monday, 5th November 2012, 15:31

Upscaling BD? Confused.







My Blu-ray Screenshot Site