20+ year old movies in Blu-Ray

[higrass]

Are all these 20+ year old movies being sold real Blu-Ray quality? Even the ones that were filmed few years ago just before the HD craze came along. What I mean is 20 years ago there was no such thing as high definition, so how are these movies all of a sudden in HD now? Are they converted at the factory to show HD quality or were they always on HD film when made but since we had no technology back then to to show its true definition they were scaled down to VHS quality.

 

[Lighthouse]

35mm film technically has a 4x higher resolution than 1080 High Definition. The problem is that it is almost effortless to transfer a digitally shot movie to Blu-Ray, but transfering 35mm film to digital is a much more costly process. Factors like how well preserved the film is, the quality of film stock used, and the care put into the transfer process all determine how well a movie looks on Blu-Ray. If everything goes smoothly, 35mm films can look fantastic in HD.

 

[Speedball]

Cool! Thanks Lighthouse, I never knew that. I was thinking the same thing that higrass was asking awhile ago, but it just slipped my mind until now.

 

[Octoberist]

i really think that you have to wait for reviews if you wanna do that.

For example, I heard that Warner Bros did a wonderful job with their Blu-Ray release of North by Northwest. They went back and remastered the transfer so that it looks awesome.

On the other side of the spectrum, I've heard that their Logan's Run Blu-Ray isn't much of an improvement on the original. So its probably best to keep some of the old DVDs of 25 plus movies until they do a good transfer.

 

[afan]

35mm film technically has a 4x higher resolution than 1080 High Definition. The problem is that it is almost effortless to transfer a digitally shot movie to Blu-Ray, but transfering 35mm film to digital is a much more costly process. Factors like how well preserved the film is, the quality of film stock used, and the care put into the transfer process all determine how well a movie looks on Blu-Ray. If everything goes smoothly, 35mm films can look fantastic in HD.

Exactly!
Even some TV series were filmed in 35mm, Star Trek: TOS being one of them, making that Blu-ray offering suberb!
The only caveat being the screen format of older films, but for me it's a non issue as even most modern films are not filmed in a 16:9 compatible format.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Analog technology is still superior to digital so yes it makes a difference.

 

[Nivek]

I actually am pretty curious to check out Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz on Blu-ray. I heard the transfers are pretty damn awesome for such an old film.

Personally, I'm all for high dollar restorations of classic films into a high Def format. Something like Plan 9 will always look like crap, but something like Spartecus looks awesome when every frame is cleaned up and restored.

 

[Crook]

On the other side of the spectrum, I've heard that their Logan's Run Blu-Ray isn't much of an improvement on the original. So its probably best to keep some of the old DVDs of 25 plus movies until they do a good transfer.

With BD, you'll always get better definition than the ones on DVD. At the very worst, the studios will encode from the same master. So even if the DVD version is substandard, the BD will still look a tad better.

What's best to look out for is whether a remaster is issued. If enough time and care is taken, films as old as 30-50 years ago will look as good as the modern day picture. Look no further than the Godfather and Casablanca remasters. They look gorgeous.

Film is analog, thus it has a near infinite resolution. Whatever next digital format comes in the future (after BluRay), they'll just do what they've always been doing; rescan the master copy at a higher resolution.

 

[Rac]

I thought Midnight Express looked really good on Blu-ray. It maintained the grainy film look. Zulu looked good too, imo. Though they had removed all the grain from it, but people didn't looke like wax dolls fortunately.

 

[danoyse]

I actually am pretty curious to check out Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz on Blu-ray. I heard the transfers are pretty damn awesome for such an old film.

Personally, I'm all for high dollar restorations of classic films into a high Def format. Something like Plan 9 will always look like crap, but something like Spartecus looks awesome when every frame is cleaned up and restored.

I got Gone With the Wind for Christmas - it looks incredible on blu-ray, almost as good as a new film. After I watched it I went online and ordered Wizard of Oz, (used a gift card I got for Christmas and got it for only $4.50!) and I've heard that transfer is just as good. Can't wait to check it out.

I watched Star Trek II last night on blu-ray, which is from 1982, and while it doesn't look as good as the new Star Trek film does on blu-ray, it's still an excellent transfer. Much better than any DVD version I've ever seen.

 

[Rac]

I actually am pretty curious to check out Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz on Blu-ray. I heard the transfers are pretty damn awesome for such an old film.

I got Gone With the Wind for Christmas - it looks incredible on blu-ray, almost as good as a new film. After I watched it I went online and ordered Wizard of Oz, (used a gift card I got for Christmas and got it for only $4.50!) and I've heard that transfer is just as good. Can't wait to check it out.

Black Narcissus (1947) looks pretty damn good, too.

 

[spider-neil]

I don't understand, how can analogue be better than digital? can someone please explain in more detail?

 

[afan]

I thought Midnight Express looked really good on Blu-ray. It maintained the grainy film look. Zulu looked good too, imo. Though they had removed all the grain from it, but people didn't looke like wax dolls fortunately.

My "Zulu" Blu ray just arrived yesterday. Watched a bit last nite and was blown away!

 

[Crook]

I don't understand, how can analogue be better than digital? can someone please explain in more detail?

There is no definite answer to which is better. It's really all preference. But in terms of the film negative, traditional film (analog) is not limited by pixel count. That's strictly a digital thing, to calculate how much information is displayed. As far as I know, analog has a near infinite resolution.

Like I mentioned above, when transferring to a digital format they just scan the master at a desired resolution. For DVDs it's 480p. For BluRay it's 1080p. And whenever the next digital format comes along, they can scan it at higher levels.

With digital films, since they're shot at a specific resolution, that is their peak. For example, if a film is shot digitally at 1080p and a couple years down the line home video utilizes something higher, that film won't be able to take advantage. But if it was shot with analog, it'd easily be tranferred towards the new format.

 

[spider-neil]

There is no definite answer to which is better. It's really all preference. But in terms of the film negative, traditional film (analog) is not limited by pixel count. That's strictly a digital thing, to calculate how much information is displayed. As far as I know, analog has a near infinite resolution.

Like I mentioned above, when transferring to a digital format they just scan the master at a desired resolution. For DVDs it's 480p. For BluRay it's 1080p. And whenever the next digital format comes along, they can scan it at higher levels.

With digital films, since they're shot at a specific resolution, that is their peak. For example, if a film is shot digitally at 1080p and a couple years down the line home video utilizes something higher, that film won't be able to take advantage. But if it was shot with analog, it'd easily be tranferred towards the new format.

many thanks.

 

[Kent]

I don't understand, how can analogue be better than digital? can someone please explain in more detail?

The information we want to store in a video is analogue, that is, it is continuous. In the real world the images are all smooth forms with which is what analogue captures (it can do this because analogue uses electronic pulses, which are also continuous/smooth). Digital is a way of representing images in pixels which are... you know... little squares of a certain size. They do not allow for smooth forms, but if the pixels are small and many enough you can't tell the difference.

So analogue is better in the sense that it actually captures the exact information we're looking to capture.

The reason we go with digital is that analogue signals are susceptible to all kinds of distortions, noise and so on. It's not practical from a storage/transfer perspective while digital is, and these limitations make it so that even though analogue captures more than digital in theory, it just can't get the same amount of clarity and sharpness as digital can.

 

[Evil Twin]

Yeah, there's a lot more information on a film negative than there is on a digital scan. Essentially, the "pixel size" on a film negative is any molecule that will react photochemically with the light falling on it.

At some point there's practically no difference in resolution, but we're not at that point yet.

It's probably also worthwhile to point out that films are physical things. They react to the environment around them. They get scratched when projected. They break. They deteriorate. The chemicals can decay and fade. A pristine analog print is better than a digital copy, but there are many storage advantages to a digital copy.

 

[Crook]

The reason we go with digital is that analogue signals are susceptible to all kinds of distortions, noise and so on. It's not practical from a storage/transfer perspective while digital is, and these limitations make it so that even though analogue captures more than digital in theory, it just can't get the same amount of clarity and sharpness as digital can.

You lost me here.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

When this topic comes up, I always think of Patton immediately. God, that's such a fantastic blu-ray

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Are all these 20+ year old movies being sold real Blu-Ray quality?

I have the Rocky Anthology and the 20+ year old movies do not look any better in Blu-Ray.

 

[Evil Twin]

I have the Rocky Anthology and the 20+ year old movies do not look any better in Blu-Ray.

And the issue with that is the restoration/scanning process.

 

[Crook]

Or (a very unfortunate common scenario), improper high-def setup.

 

[YoungE808]

I'm hearing that North by Northwest looks pretty amazing in Blu Ray.

 

[danoyse]

And the issue with that is the restoration/scanning process.

Exactly. Gone With the Wind is 70 years old and that movie looks fantastic on blu-ray. I also have Sleeping Beauty on blu-ray, which is a 50-year-old film, and that looks better than the DVD version I had.

 

[War Party]

I have the North By Northwest blu-ray and it's stunning. I've seen that movie so many times on different formats, and I have never seen or heard it like that ever. I'm sure that's what it looked like when it was first released in theaters.