Video Quality Rating on Old Movies

[boulder_bum]

As a preface, I tried to start a thread on this topic before, and I'm still not quite sure what happened (the conversation didn't get disrespectful last I checked, and I only got vague answers from a mod).

I want to try this again, however, with some ground rules. First and foremost, be respectful: there's nothing wrong with having an opinion and freely expressing it. The definition of forum is "A public meeting place for open discussion", and certainly it's possible to have a civil discourse on this potentially interesting topic in what is hopefully an open Blu-ray "forum".'

Second, this is a thread about video quality ratings of old vs. new films, not a judgement on stories or the films' place in history (outside of the context of video quality).

For my part, I'm going to rephrase the topic in what is hopefully a benign and non-confrontational statement (that you are free to politely disagree with).

Namely, a lot of older movies get high video quality ratings for being true to the source material, but do they truly deserve the 4.5-5 stars they get? My contention is that film and filmmaking technology has improved to the point that older movies sometimes seem dated an ugly to me. I don't like grain, and I think the color accuracy, sets and lighting of old films are subpar.

For example, take the 4.5 star "Jason and the Argonauts" which is praised by the Blu-ray.com review which said, "It's rough, it's grainy, and it's glorious.".

Contrast the screen shot below with the 5 star quality of Avatar:




Is there really any comparison? Does "Argonauts" really look all that close in terms of quality?

I think old animation is another good example. Compare "Snow White" to "Princess and the Frog".





Certainly I can see a rating scale for historical preservation, but should that directly translate into an objective measurement for video quality?

[42041]

I don't think objective assessments are necessary. At this point, surely everyone's got enough demo discs

[rezpekt]

Here we go again with this silly topic...

[boulder_bum]

I actually use the video quality ratings of Blu-ray.com all the time to determine whether or not I want to order movies I'm on the fence about. I have more fun watching when the picture pops!

[BasicGreatGuy]

Why are you so hung up on how other people may rate older movies versus new movies? What does it truly matter? All that should matter, is whether or not you enjoyed the particular movie you were watching. At the end of the movie day, it is all subjective.

[Mahatma]

You can't rate in comparisons to other movies.You have to give a rating as to how good it looks in comparison to the original material.I think Psycho looks very good,but it won't have the crispness of-lets say-avatar.There are around 40 years of technology progress lieing between them.

[boulder_bum]

Originally Posted by BasicGreatGuy

Why are you so hung up on how other people may rate older movies versus new movies? What does it truly matter? All that should matter, is whether or not you enjoyed the particular movie you were watching. At the end of the movie day, it is all subjective.

True in a way. There's no reason to let others detract from your enjoyment of a movie, but people like expressing qualitative opinions. It's like arguing over sports teams or the quality of food at a restaurant.

Award shows are made because of people's interest in such rankings.

[poke smot]

you cant compare the two. as film buffs, we all know an old film is rated with in the context of "being an old film." it seems confusing to try to explain. its just apples and oranges i guess.

[Geezer00003]

I think the reviewers here at Blu-ray.com for the most part get it right.
Sure there might be some scores I don't totally agree with.
My aging eyes might see things abit differently.

They have my support and thanks for the effort they put forth!

[boulder_bum]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

You can't rate in comparisons to other movies.You have to give a rating as to how good it looks in comparison to the original material.I think Psycho looks very good,but it won't have the crispness of-lets say-avatar.There are around 40 years of technology progress lieing between them.

See I agree with everything you're saying except about how the ratings should be measured. I think ratings shouldn't be about how good it looks compared to the original material because the original material might not look good to begin with. A 5 star video quality should have a clean picture that pops and is much better than, say, a 2 star video quality movie.

"Jason and the Argonauts" is no "Avatar" in terms of video quality, in my opinion, and the rating should reflect that.

[Beta Man]

Jason and the Argonauts didn't look like Avatar at the theater...... and the Blu-ray of Predator Ultimate Hunter's Edition didn't look like Avatar at the theater so that's fine..... what's not fine, is the fact that Predator UHE didn't look like "Predator" at the theater either.

You want your movies to "pop" I think that is your preference.... and also your ultimate downfall when it comes to enjoying properly restored classics.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by boulder_bum

See I agree with everything you're saying except about how the ratings should be measured. I think ratings shouldn't be about how good it looks compared to the original material because the original material might not look good to begin with.

Then I don't think "The Departed" should get 3.5/5 for the Film, because based on "Internal Affairs" it's a 2.0/5 at best.....

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by boulder_bum

True in a way. There's no reason to let others detract from your enjoyment of a movie, but people like expressing qualitative opinions. It's like arguing over sports teams or the quality of food at a restaurant.

Award shows are made because of people's interest in such rankings.

That is true. I take into account the reviews of seasoned members here, as well as other places on the web. I don't let the subjective review(s) of other people dictate what I buy, when it comes to movies.

And I agree with the poster here who said that a lot of the time, the seasoned reviewers on this site do a great job, for the free service they provide.

Like some others have said, to try and compare movies 30 - 50 years or more ago to today's movies, in regards to the various subjective parameters that are important to us, the home viewer, is an apples and oranges argument. In my opinion, each movie should stand or fall on its own merits, or the lack thereof.

[boulder_bum]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Jason and the Argonauts didn't look like Avatar at the theater...... and the Blu-ray of Predator Ultimate Hunter's Edition didn't look like Avatar at the theater so that's fine..... what's not fine, is the fact that Predator UHE didn't look like "Predator" at the theater either.

You want your movies to "pop" I think that is your preference.... and also your ultimate downfall when it comes to enjoying properly restored classics.

But doesn't that sort of mean that "Jason and the Argonauts" was a, say, 1-2 star picture quality in the theater by today's standards? To me that doesn't equate to a 4.5 star Blu-ray quality.

Film technology wasn't as good back then, just like consumer media wasn't as good back then. Do we judge modern Blu-ray quality by how much it looked like an old VHS tape?

Certainly not! Blu-ray is an improved format, so we expect a higher quality and today, I also think the standard for quality is set by improved film technology and digital cameras.

I'll save the "Predator" discussion for its dedicated thread.

[boulder_bum]

Originally Posted by BasicGreatGuy

And I agree with the poster here who said that a lot of the time, the seasoned reviewers on this site do a great job, for the free service they provide.

I absolutely agree with that, too.

I ALWAYS come to Blu-ray.com for their reviews and purchase many Blu-rays through the site as a result of their recommendations. I just disagree with their philosophy on rating older movies quality.

[boulder_bum]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Then I don't think "The Departed" should get 3.5/5 for the Film, because based on "Internal Affairs" it's a 2.0/5 at best.....

I've never see "Internal Affairs" on Blu-ray, but I can buy that relative ranking if what you say is true. I remember thinking that "The Departed" wasn't exceptional in terms of PQ.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by boulder_bum

Do we judge modern Blu-ray quality by how much it looked like an old VHS tape?
.

No.... we judge it on how it looks compared to the source, which wasn't VHS....

There are 5/5 PQ ratings for DVDs because they exemplify the best of the format for transfer from the source material..... by your rationale, there would no longer be 5/5 ratings for DVD because we know better home-viewing material for that film is now either available, or possible....... which is why we rate PQ based on 1) What it is supposed to look like (Theatrical release) vs. 2) What the format is capable of.

Originally Posted by boulder_bum

I've never see "Internal Affairs" on Blu-ray, but I can buy that relative ranking if what you say is true. I remember thinking that "The Departed" wasn't exceptional in terms of PQ.

I wasn't referring to the PQ, I was making an analogy of how good the film was..... since The Departed (in my opinion) is a poor remake of the original (which is Internal Affairs) It was all just a light-hearted attempt to add a little humor.


EDIT:

I should also point out that the Film itself, followed by the audio, are my two most important factors in terms of "enjoyment" I am certainly no videophile, but I do prefer transfers to be faithful to source material.

[poke smot]

i can see the OPs point here. he wants a universal standard for ratings. unfortunatly, its just not that simple. too many variables. there can never be a benchmark because it will always be subjective.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by tuck301

i can see the OPs point here. he wants a universal standard for ratings. unfortunatly, its just not that simple. too many variables. there can never be a benchmark because it will always be subjective.

Exactly. It is impossible to have some kind of uniform standard, when one is speaking of subjective opinions.

I agree with Beta. The quality of a film transfer review should be proportionate to original source material and the ability of the media to faithfully reproduce the original source as intended.

[danny24]

There's really nothing anyone can do about it, it's natural the way some of the older films were shot and there is no point comparing old films to something like "Avatar" which cost like $500 million or so to make and is a special effects tour de force. For some older films I just stick with the DVD anyhow.