What's the script with old stuff coming out on blu-ray???

[dm1983]

I see a lot of older films and tv series have came out on bluray.

Is it really worth it?

[P@t_Mtl]

I would say yes, the restoration done on them make the PQ just stunning

[kefrank]

This seems to come up a lot around here. Maybe we need an 'Old Films/TV Shows on Blu-ray FAQ" thread.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by kefrank

This seems to come up a lot around here. Maybe we need an 'Old Films/TV Shows on Blu-ray FAQ" thread.

Could be a good idea. I know quite a few people (not on this forum) who keep asking me about older movies and what is the point of having them on BD.

[Marcusarilius]

For me, anything I liked enough to purchase on DVD has Always been a wonderful surprise in PQ (sometimes SQ) and is worth the up-grade. Enjoy!

[-Sandro-]

Totally, I'm waiting for movies only on DVD and tv shows that are in 4x3 even they were shot in 1.78:1 or wider = WB releases (this would probably never happened)

[Riff Magnum]

If you're a fan of the movie or tv show, then it's pretty much a no-brainer. Usually, even the worst transfers are better than the DVD counterparts. I can't remember which titles constantly get referred to around here, since they weren't movies i was interested in, but there seems to be only a couple that people say aren't worth the upgrade. Just read the reviews and do some research and that should give you a good idea as to whether you should pull the trigger to double dip. I've got two older black and white movies on blu and they look and sound great. Even South Park was totally worth the upgrade.

[Anthony P]

For me, anything I liked enough to purchase on DVD has Always been a wonderful surprise in PQ (sometimes SQ) and is worth the up-grade. Enjoy!

Same here. There is no catalogue BD that I have bought that was not worth the upgrade. Anything worth watching is worth watching in the best presentation possible.

[Knight-Errant]

I think a lot of people don't realize that film can be scanned in High Definition, no matter how old it is.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

I think a lot of people don't realize that film can be scanned in High Definition, no matter how old it is.

Very true, very very true. There are documentaries that can be watch on this that eplain how it is done but how many people who are not movie maniac would actualy care to watch them.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Very true, very very true. There are documentaries that can be watch on this that eplain how it is done but how many people who are not movie maniac would actualy care to watch them.

It's normally something people are delighted to find out in my experience, but the level of awareness is low.

[lobosrul]

The video quality of older releases can vary greatly, for various reasons that have been discussed on these very forums.

Watch Patton (1970) for one that is a massive improvement over the DVD.
Watch Hoosiers (1986) for a movie thats only a marginal improvement.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

The video quality of older releases can vary greatly, for various reasons that have been discussed on these very forums.

Watch Patton (1970) for one that is a massive improvement over the DVD.
Watch Hoosiers (1986) for a movie thats only a marginal improvement.

Patton was heavily DNR'ed. While it may look better than the DVD, it doesn't look as good as it could have looked. Check South Pacific for a 70mm film put on Blu-Ray the right way. Baraka is a great example as well.

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Patton was heavily DNR'ed. While it may look better than the DVD, it doesn't look as good as it could have looked. Check South Pacific for a 70mm film put on Blu-Ray the right way. Baraka is a great example as well.

Check out How the West Was Won. Best PQ I've seen yet.

[Beast]

Another amazing looking older film, the original Day The Earth Stood Still.

[andyman1970]

The Pink Panther (1964)
The Thing (1982)

also look amazing

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Patton was heavily DNR'ed. While it may look better than the DVD, it doesn't look as good as it could have looked. Check South Pacific for a 70mm film put on Blu-Ray the right way. Baraka is a great example as well.

How exactly do you know that Patton was heavily DNR'd? Is it simply because there's not a terrible amount of grain? I mean, i didn't see Patton when it was first released in theaters, so all i can compare it to is the DVD, and the BD blows it away. I think people on this site tend to hear something, or read something, and then just run with it until everyone is chiming in with the same old comments and recommendations. People say that Patton looks like wax sculptures and there's a ton of lost detail. I dunno, the people look like people, and the detail is pretty ridiculous IMO.
2001:ASO is another 70mm film that is insanely crisp and "popping" yet i hear no one complain about that transfer. Is there something I should be looking for, or that i'm not seeing when it comes to all the post production/processing techo babble. I'm serious here. Maybe ignorance is just bliss on my part.

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

How exactly do you know that Patton was heavily DNR'd? Is it simply because there's not a terrible amount of grain? I mean, i didn't see Patton when it was first released in theaters, so all i can compare it to is the DVD, and the BD blows it away. I think people on this site tend to hear something, or read something, and then just run with it until everyone is chiming in with the same old comments and recommendations. People say that Patton looks like wax sculptures and there's a ton of lost detail. I dunno, the people look like people, and the detail is pretty ridiculous IMO.
2001:ASO is another 70mm film that is insanely crisp and "popping" yet i hear no one complain about that transfer. Is there something I should be looking for, or that i'm not seeing when it comes to all the post production/processing techo babble. I'm serious here. Maybe ignorance is just bliss on my part.

The reason people say Patton looks "waxy" is you'd think a film that old wouldn't look so much less grainy than those filmed w/ modern technology. When you compare it w/ the many other blu-rays out there you have no choice but to see that it's been DNR'd a bit. Does excessive DNR look better than excessive grain to most people(including me)? Judging by the posts on this site I'd say yes. However, most of the knowledgeable people here(technicians, industry insiders, etc. HATE DNR and want to preserve the original film material. DNR causes you lose some of the pristine elements of the film(I gather) according to the experts on this site. After watching Patton again I see their point, but I still prefer a "clean" transfer. That's just me though...

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

How exactly do you know that Patton was heavily DNR'd? Is it simply because there's not a terrible amount of grain? I mean, i didn't see Patton when it was first released in theaters, so all i can compare it to is the DVD, and the BD blows it away. I think people on this site tend to hear something, or read something, and then just run with it until everyone is chiming in with the same old comments and recommendations. People say that Patton looks like wax sculptures and there's a ton of lost detail. I dunno, the people look like people, and the detail is pretty ridiculous IMO.
2001:ASO is another 70mm film that is insanely crisp and "popping" yet i hear no one complain about that transfer. Is there something I should be looking for, or that i'm not seeing when it comes to all the post production/processing techo babble. I'm serious here. Maybe ignorance is just bliss on my part.

It was confirmed by many people who are much better at spotting those types of artifacts than I am (Robert Harris is one) who said that Patton looked terrible. And judging from the screenshots I must agree with him. 2001 ASO looks good, but there's some edge enhancement in it. Warner probably used the same master from the earlier dvd. If they would re-do it, I'm sure it would look even better.
And Constitution 101, the details are in the grain, so it doesn't make sense to remove those. Plus, Patton was shot on 70mm, which already has much smaller grain, so it wouldn't have to be DNR'ed to begin with. If I had to choose between more details or a 'clean' picture, I would choose the first option any time.

[Riff Magnum]

So if you had never read the "experts" reviews of the BD and simply just watched the movie right out of the gate, then do you think your opinion would still be that the movie looked horrible? I'm not disputing the idea that DNR was used on Patton, and is probably used to some degree on all movies. I'm not disputing the fact that DNR, if used excessively, can mitigate detail. What i'm wondering is, if the placebo effect is causing us to adopt the opinions of others before we have a chance to gather our own opinions first? Like for example, if you had only read the bluray.com review of this movie before watching it (even though you said you haven't actually watched it, just getting your opinion from some screenshots and Robert Harris ), would your opinion of it be the same. I doubt it, because you're at least honest enough to confide to us that you defer to the experts on such things. Making it seem like you don't trust your own judgement on these matters, which is fine. I'm sure someone like Robert Harris has forgotten more techno-mumbo jumbo than i'll ever know, but in the end it's me that's watching the movie and when I watch Patton it looks damn good. I'm not gonna get too worked up about the would've, should've, could'ves when Patton is one of those movies that would be in my collection even if i thought the transfer was subpar. The movie is still so damn good that it overrides everything else. Similar to the debate that's going on with the Good the Bad and the Ugly, i guess.