What might make a studio re-release a BD because of quality?

[djluis2k6]

We've seen countless threads on this forum about movies that didn't have good transfers, or even those that were originally shot in HD and still had a lot of grain in the film. What might make a studio want to re-transfer some of those releases and bring them out again? I didn't think they would re-release T3 just to put it out as 1080p. To me, that wasn't a big deal and I don't know that the sells would have been any different.

[Blu Man]

The tech has advanced, and they want their Blu Rays to look as best as possible. If they don't look any better then the DVD why would you pay more for it? Or if it was recieving to many complaints they might redo it just to shut people up.

[Blu-ray Fanatic]

Sleepy Hollow
Terminator 1 & 2
AC/DC: Live at Donington
And a whole bunch of other ones....too many to list

[djluis2k6]

Originally Posted by Spartan54

The tech has advanced, and they want their Blu Rays to look as best as possible. If they don't look any better then the DVD why would you pay more for it? Or if it was recieving to many complaints they might redo it just to shut people up.

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Take for example Ocean's 13 or Lord of War. 2 newer movies that should have looked a lot better than they did. What might make these studios want to re-release them after making the quality better? They really couldn't go on sales because it could be believed that if they didn't sell well was because of the quality scores they were receiving.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Take for example Ocean's 13 or Lord of War. 2 newer movies that should have looked a lot better than they did. What might make these studios want to re-release them after making the quality better? They really couldn't go on sales because it could be believed that if they didn't sell well was because of the quality scores they were receiving.

I thought Oceans 13 looked amazing. The colors were bright and the picture was sharp. I think it looked exactly as they intended it to look.

[djluis2k6]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

I thought Oceans 13 looked amazing. The colors were bright and the picture was sharp. I think it looked exactly as they intended it to look.

I like that movie, but there were too many spots in that movie that looks real grainy. For starters, at the beginning while Rusty was walking through the toy store in the dark. I can give you more examples, but that's the first one that comes to mind.

[navyman]

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

We've seen countless threads on this forum about movies that didn't have good transfers, or even those that were originally shot in HD and still had a lot of grain in the film. What might make a studio want to re-transfer some of those releases and bring them out again? I didn't think they would re-release T3 just to put it out as 1080p. To me, that wasn't a big deal and I don't know that the sells would have been any different.

There is nothing wrong with grain. Grain is supposed to be there the last thing I want is for studios to start removing grain from movies against the director's intentions just to satisfy people that know nothing about movies.

[djluis2k6]

Originally Posted by navyman

There is nothing wrong with grain. Grain is supposed to be there the last thing I want is for studios to start removing grain from movies against the director's intentions just to satisfy people that know nothing about movies.

Ok then go ahead, tell me why there is suppose to be grain in a movie.

[navyman]

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

Ok then go ahead, tell me why there is suppose to be grain in a movie.

Because of the film and exposure that the director decides to use it helps set a mood. 300 had a ton of grain because of the way the director decided to film the movie. Grain isn't a bad thing.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

I like that movie, but there were too many spots in that movie that looks real grainy. For starters, at the beginning while Rusty was walking through the toy store in the dark. I can give you more examples, but that's the first one that comes to mind.

It was supposed to be that way. Steven Soderbergh wanted that bright colored and grainy look.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

Ok then go ahead, tell me why there is suppose to be grain in a movie.

Because film has grain and your watching a film.

[HumanMedia]

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

Ok then go ahead, tell me why there is suppose to be grain in a movie.

You will also see more detail in a film frame where its grain structure is preserved.

Which brings us back to the original posters question - "What might make a studio re-release a BD?" - They should re-release any films which have been artificially smoothed out to remove grain with DNR. They should be rereleased with grain intact (eg Patton, Dark City etc)

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

Ok then go ahead, tell me why there is suppose to be grain in a movie.

There are literally dozens of threads dedicated to grain in films, ie why it's there, why it's a good thing, etc. In short, a piece of film is composed of "pieces" of grain. Blu-ray, for the first time in a home video format, has the resolution to actually show the grain structure of film. If you take a film that was actually shot on film and remove the grain (DNR), then you remove detail. Some directors (Soderbergh is one) intentionally shoot their films with more grain for stylistic purposes.

Originally Posted by navyman

Because of the film and exposure that the director decides to use it helps set a mood. 300 had a ton of grain because of the way Frank Miller decided to film the movie. Grain isn't a bad thing.

Frank Miller didn't direct 300. It was a Zack Snyder film.

As far as re-releasing a film based on quality . . . I dunno. Fifth Element is the only disc that I know of that has been re-released based on poor quality and not because of a defect/error in bringing the film to Blu-ray. My best guess as to why they re-released it would be that it was a very early disc in the format war and was a very poor way of promoting the format. I'm hoping for a Gangs of New York recall/reissue, but I'm not holding my breath.