So, what is the deal with so called 'catalog titles'?

[Jim Purcell]

As studios pump out more and more titles to meet BD's rapidly growing demand, we of course are seeing more and more 'catalog titles' hitting shelves every week. Movies we've seen before, in other formats (DVD, VHS), generally with no new bells or whistles except the promise of high-def picture and sound. Often times with varied and questionable results. To the point that I often avoid so called 'catalog titles' without extensively checking their VQ and AQ reviews here.

So my question is this, what process are studios generally going through to pump out these catalog titles? I have a hunch that in most cases, studios are simply reusing their old digital remasters they produced back in DVD's hey-day. Only now they're slightly less digitally compressed on BD, so you get marginally better picture. Because the source hasn't been remastered with High-Def in mind. For that studios would AGAIN have to go back to the original film stock and remaster it yet again. High profile movies like Saving Private Ryan, Apollo 13, etc... often times get this treatment, and a big hoop-de-doo when they are rereleased. But most of the time most catalog titles don't. They're just simply slapped on BD with the best available digital master source available, and kicked out the door.

Is this a remotely accurate assumption, when concerning catalog titles?

And is this a practice we should support? I know I've had questionable experiences with catalog titles; The Warriors and Dark City, in particular. They look okay, but not as great as some movies from the same eras that have gonna far more high-profile releases.