what WON'T look better in high definition?

[no_wei]

So, poking around on this forum has me quite excited for the impending release of blu-ray, despite having no idea how i'm going to pay for the increasing severity of my digital video addiction.

I noticed at least one of the more recent posts concerns DVDs longevity, and I must admit, when I first started checking up on blu-ray, it occured to me that one of the most interesting side effects of blu-ray's release (and hd-dvd's release, for that matter) will be the eventual discounting of DVDs, which, in many cases, are already dirt cheap. So, my question is this:

What kind of stuff is already on DVD (or still headed to DVD) that, due to its original master format, will just simply NOT be able to improve with the move to high-definition?

My theory is the following: television that was recorded using a video format, i.e. some sort of beta; films from the early history of film, i.e. pre-sound era films that either didn't have the greatest picture quality to begin with (something like Voyage to the Moon circa 1903) or that master reels that have already degraded a good deal (i'm thinking something like Birth of a Nation, but I can't remember if it falls into this category); and, perhaps, some animation.

In one of the other threads there was some discussion about something like a Charlie Rose interview making the move to 1080p. Now, I could be way off here, but wouldn't any current (or even circa 2000) Charlie Rose interview (or pretty much any non-dramatic television show) be shot using beta, which either falls short of or is comparable to the current dvd standard? So, if the original source material is already of considerably less quality than high defintion offers, then there can't possibly be anything to gain by "increasing" the picture quality.

I think the same would be true for a lot of early film, although probably far more debatable insofar as the actual resolution of film seems to be a bit of a contentious topic. Basically my argument here is that a lot of early films had (or, due to the ravages of time, now have) picture qualities that were less than perfect. So, I think this might be an instance where you could theoretically gain additional image information, but my question is: how critical is said image information?

I ask more-or-less the same question with regard to animation. Let's take The Simpsons, for example. I am already amazed at how good it looks on DVD, and just due to the style of animation, which essentially uses large blocks of homogenous colour (i.e. Homer's blue pants), how much better can this possibly get? I imagine the original masters (which I suspect would, in fact, be a film negative) do offer a theoretically higher quality, but again, would one notice? It's not as though the image quality can be increased to the point where one could see each individual hair in Homer's stubble, because it was never animated in the original. Of course I recognize there aren't necessarily any hard and fast rules for animation, as this type of thing would become less of a concern as one moved toward something like, say, the old Aquaman cartoons or more of a concern as one moved toward an animated film like Ghost in the Shell, for example.

So, I guess that's a long way to ask this short question: what should everyone look for in DVD bargain bins in the coming months and years?

Thanks for indulging my verbosity,

/no

[JTK]

Put it to you this way: I'm not replacing all of my DVD's.

Something like...Grumpy Old Men, for example, does need full fledged HD treatment. Although that DVD is sorely overdue to at least get a proper widescreen transfer.

For me, movies that I either REALLY care about or movies that have a lot of audio and visual punch will ultimately get the HD lovin'.

Things like TV shows and such? Forget about it, especially older ones.

[zombie]

I'm only replacing about 25% of the movies I owned on DVD, with BDs. Grumpy Old Men is a definite purchase for me, as is it's sequel. If TV shows like According To Jim can look great in HD so can these types of movies.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by nyg

I'm only replacing about 25% of the movies I owned on DVD, with BDs. Grumpy Old Men is a definite purchase for me, as is it's sequel. If TV shows like According To Jim can look great in HD so can these types of movies.

I agree. I was just using GOL as a random example.

I love those movies as well, so they will most certainly get the royal treatment, especially since their present DVD's are so spartan and lacking. No widescreen even?!

[phloyd]

I am mostly looking to get TV shows on DVD these days.

Will probably replace a number of my movies but many are there just waiting for a viewing - repeated viewing movies are the obvious choice for BD.

TV shows, especially those shot on video, are really not worth BD IMHO.

[Shadowself]

is getting an entire season of your favorite show on a single disk -- for pre-HDTV shows, that is.

Thus you could get all of B5 on 5 disks rather than 30. IF/When the 200 GB Blu-ray disks show up you might be able to get everything broadcast for B5 (including movies and the spin off) on just two 200 GB disks.

Or for more historical shows... all of the M*A*S*H TV series on just 10 disks. Or all of Gunsmoke on just 20 disks!

[tron3]

I had a VHS version of the movie Metropolis (1926). Easy to see it was choppy, jumpy, etc. But still viewable to an extent.

Got the restored version on DVD, and what a difference. From what I understand it was restored frame by frame. The jitters where gone, the cracks, and hairs, and spots of air bubbles, etc. Incredible difference.

Restoring those old films can be done, and can be done in HD. Even back then film probably had 4000 lines of measurable resolution because film is so fine.

In my opinion, watching it in 1080p doesn't do the movies justice.

[no_wei]

I've been giving some thought to tv on blu-ray.

I do think there're are some shows that would be worth having on blu-ray, assuming the studios actually go back to the original negative (assuming it wasn't shot on video) and remaster it for hdtv. For instance, I have yet to purchase any of the star trek dvds, and i fully expect that they would be a prime candidate for remastering. But, as I said in my initial post, I doubt I'm going to run out and re-buy my simpsons collection on blu-ray.

However, one advantage I see to putting tv series on blu-ray is that the storage capacity is so immense that instead of season-based box sets, we might start getting series-based box sets. Some manufacturers have already starting bundling multiple seasons together on dvd (i.e. there are bundle packs available for all of the star trek series [and i believe an ultimate bundle that contains all the series and films, with the exception of the animated series], south park had a four or five season bundle pack, i think the simpsons did something similar, etc.).

So, with that in mind, a lot of the tv box sets that I was working my way through buying have been put on indefinite hold, because I'm fairly confident that better versions (even if they're only better insofar as they take up one tenth of the shelf space of dvds) are on the way.

/no

[no_wei]

I try to write an original post, and then by the time I get it posted someone has beaten me to the idea.

dang.

/no

[no_wei]

Originally Posted by tron3

I had a VHS version of the movie Metropolis (1926). Easy to see it was choppy, jumpy, etc. But still viewable to an extent.

Got the restored version on DVD, and what a difference. From what I understand it was restored frame by frame. The jitters where gone, the cracks, and hairs, and spots of air bubbles, etc. Incredible difference.

Restoring those old films can be done, and can be done in HD. Even back then film probably had 4000 lines of measurable resolution because film is so fine.

In my opinion, watching it in 1080p doesn't do the movies justice.

Well, I didn't mention metropolis before because it was exquistely shot and I think it's probably one of the films that would benefit from an HD transfer (I'm not saying those films don't exist, but I'm saying that not all early films fall into that category).

As I understand it, the amount of resolution, in terms of lines, on film is really relative to the sensitivity of the film scanner being used. Last I heard, some of the best scanners could get something like 10,000 horizontal lines from a 35mm frame. So, if you've got a 35mm frame from metropolis or from lord of the rings, and you scan it using the same high-end scanner, you should be able to get 10,000 horizontal lines from each one.

My question is, even with metropolis, how many of those lines contain relevant image information? For example, on many modern films, just due to the increase in film technology and, probably more importantly, knowledge of film technology (and control over more and more variables that affect the finished image), as scan resolutions increase, the amount of detail increases. A while ago someone posted some lotr high def images and it was clear that aragorn's beard moved from a kind of fuzzy grey blob into a collection of individual, and distinguishable, hairs that made up his beard. So, I wanna know, if you were to look at the 35mm master of metropolis, is it possible to distinguish the hairs on, say, rotwang's head?

Also, with regard to the restoration of metropolis, I believe a print was actually found somewhere around 2000 or so. If I remember correctly it contained additional scenes that may or may not have screened at the premiere, but were then later removed. So I don't know if the special edition dvd that's out there right now is a straight restoration, but a combination of a restoration and some fantastic luck.

/no

[JTK]

Honestly, the answer to the thread title is "almost nothing" unless you put in something where the source material itself was weak or corrupted in the first place. Garbage in, garbage out, as always.

That's why (thankfully) we've seen all these amazing restoration and remastering jobs on old movies for even regular DVDs. And it's been well worth it!

[zombie]

I agree, pretty much anything will look better in HD. However, it'd be nice to see older material restored first.