Blu-ray transfer of old movies

[roopster77]

Originally Posted by Cinemaddict

So someday, I guess something is going to be able to go far beyond 1080p and replace Blu-Ray.

I so want to see that screen in a house...

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Cinemaddict

So someday, I guess something is going to be able to go far beyond 1080p and replace Blu-Ray.

Always this is a possibility. But I don't think this would happen for a very long time. IMO blu-ray is a real winner (so we should do our best to protect its image). It will entertain home viewers for some time to come (at least few decades). It will live longer than DVD. IMO, we could start collecting bly-rays and replace DVDs as the ultimate collection!

The main reason for this opinion is the quality that it could deliver in a home environment. Even on a very large screen (limited by the typical real estate restrictions), it could produce an absolutely stunning and detailed picture (at least for some movies).

[rl168]

Folks,

I'm new to Blu ray and have been wondering about this for a while. The new movies that just got released looks awesome, but what about the older movies? I am talking about movies like Predator, Independece Day, and others from late 80s till early 00s. Will they look good like the new movies or will they still look grainy? I remember when they "digitally re-mastered" the old movies from video into DVD, the picture quality was still bad. So I am wondering if that still apllies to blu-ray. Thanks!

[ObiMcD]

Usually what I've found is that some prints tend to age better than others. Independence Day shows a little bit of age but imho Die Hard looks great. I mean really I'd still reccommend ID4 for Blu-ray cuz it still looks amazing but it really just depends on what kind of shape the master print that they use is from.

[syncguy]

New movies are in generally better than the old movies on blu-ray. But there are exceptions. One example is "2001: Space Odyssey" filmed in 1968 on ~70mm film. May be due to the large film format this film is exceptionally good for that age. However, it is not good as some new movies like Pirates. In some cases, old movies get restored. The above mentioned movie might have gone through a restoration process.

The resolution of the film depends on the chemical grain on the film. This also improves with time and also different film stocks have different level of grain. A large film format like 70mm will always help to reduce grain. Some people would say that the grain is part of the film and that should be the way. In some cases intentionally grain is added if the director wants it to be like that.

In addition to film grain, the digitisation process also contributes to the resolution of the picture. 4K (higher movie resolution) will be better than 2K (which is closer to HD).

I have seen in depth technical discussions on this subject in this forum. Please do a search.

[Dogslyf]

To see an illustration of what syncguy is saying just watch the recently released Episodes 4 through 6 of Star Wars. Episode 4 in particular is of particularly bad quality. This is due to the fact that the movie was not shot widescreen and also the issue of film grain like syncguy said. It all depends on the master print. Look at Blade Runner that was done about the same time as SW. Ridley Scott says on the documentary that he refused to shoot on only high quality film stock and only in widescreen. Because Scott was able to use the best film stock available and shoot it wide, the new BD version looks great. I am not so sure if even a BD version of Star Wars would be that big an improvement. I mean, I'll still buy Star Wars on BD but I am not expecting the quality to be that big an improvement.

[Deciazulado]

For those wondering how old movies will look on Blu-ray, or thinking that "oh this movie is from the 90's, it can't look as good , can't it?" here's how a 60+ year old can look
.





More pics here. Read the review Stev made here

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

For those wondering how old movies will look on Blu-ray, or thinking that "oh this movie is from the 90's, it can't look as good , can't it?" here's how a 60+ year old can look
.





More pics here. Read the review Stev made here

yeah, Black Narcissus was shot in true Technicolor. it's a great example of the concept that it's not when the film was shot, but how it was shot (and of course, handled since then) that will mostly determine the quality on Blu-ray.

[whingebag]

Hi, I'm new to this and was wondering if somebody could help me please.....

Films that were made in the 90's or earlier that are being re-released on Blu-ray disc are they going to be better than the original copy? Personally I cannot see how an old film made before HD or 1080p was conceived can be better on Blu-ray than it was before, what are your thoughts?

Take Terminator 2 for instance, made in 1991 and released on Blu-ray with a 1080p quality, can it really be stunning visually and sound even better than the original SD DVD release?

I look forward to your reply.

Whingbag.

[aramis109]

It's been discussed in great detail here and elsewhere, but I'll sum it up as briefly as possible:

Film is capable of much higher resolution than 1920 x 1080. There have been 4k and (I believe) even 8k resolution. That's well above the capabilities of Blu-Ray currently.

Make no mistake- if handled properly and some time and effort are put into it, older movies can look FANTASTIC. I know Rob Tomlin has been waiting forever, but Lawrence of Arabia should be amazing thanks to the filmstock used. For currently-released movies, check out Blade Runner or 2001: A Space Odyssey for a couple of the best-looking bd's available.

[Beta Man]

Many will say that T2 is NOT a good example of the capabilities of the format, but check out these,

2001
Bladerunner
The Shining
Full Metal Jacket (re-release)
A Clockwork Orange
Patton (some debate on this one, but I say it looks fantastic)


2001 was filmed in the 60's, and it's probably the best live-action blu-ray for Picture Quality that I own.....


EDIT: Aramis beat me to it

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Many will say that T2 is NOT a good example of the capabilities of the format, but check out these,

2001
Bladerunner
The Shining
Full Metal Jacket (re-release)
A Clockwork Orange
Patton (some debate on this one, but I say it looks fantastic)


2001 was filmed in the 60's, and it's probably the best live-action blu-ray for Picture Quality that I own.....

Agreed! I haven't yet gotten around to The Shining and A Clockwork Orange (which I'm ashamed to say I've never seen) but I fully plan to.

There are also a few older war movies that this site has reviewed that supposedly look fantastic.

Originally Posted by Beta Man

EDIT: Aramis beat me to it

You were too busy looking for more Ayofool pics.

[Deciazulado]

How do they make older movies into Blu-ray Discs?

Restoring Old Movies

Grain in certain scenes of older films

Oldest Movie on Blu-ray?

etc

[imhotep]

I recently bought my first Blu-Ray player and I'm interested in replacing some (if not all) of my DVD collection with Blu-Ray discs. My question is, at what point did film makers start shooting in a format that actually has enough data to provide 1080p resolution?

For example, one of my all-time favs is 'Hunt for Red October'. It is already out on Blu-Ray, but it was filmed in 1990. I'm assuming a film this old has to be up-sampled or remastered to be shown at 1080p but I'm fairly ignorant at this point.

Is it worth it to buy movies this old on BR or should I just keep them on DVD?

Is there an easy rule-of-thumb for making this decision? Such as, "if filmed prior to 19xx then don't bother with BR" or something to that effect.

Thanks for your help!

[u_nick]

If I remember correctly (And I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong), Old stuff has a pretty good chance of looking a lot better. What you want to look at is whether the movie was filmed with FILM or TAPE. Tape is made for standard viewing, I think 480 or whatever? But film is FILM. It's already the highest resolution possible, because its basically photographs.

[kpkelley]

Well, the beginning of film was in the late 19th century so around then.


Film used from even the early days of cinema including silent era films can have much more information than 1080P.

As for your example of The Hunt for Red October you can check out the review here.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by imhotep

I recently bought my first Blu-Ray player and I'm interested in replacing some (if not all) of my DVD collection with Blu-Ray discs. My question is, at what point did film makers start shooting in a format that actually has enough data to provide 1080p resolution?

For example, one of my all-time favs is 'Hunt for Red October'. It is already out on Blu-Ray, but it was filmed in 1990. I'm assuming a film this old has to be up-sampled or remastered to be shown at 1080p but I'm fairly ignorant at this point.

Is it worth it to buy movies this old on BR or should I just keep them on DVD?

Is there an easy rule-of-thumb for making this decision? Such as, "if filmed prior to 19xx then don't bother with BR" or something to that effect.

Thanks for your help!

I have some older films in BD that just look amazing. The Gauntlet, The Searchers, The Shinning, 2001, The Adventures of Robing Hood, Viva Las Vegas, The Sand Pebbles, ect A big difference in picture quality from the DVD version.

[GoBlu08]

I too have some of the older films on blu ray that look great. Some are Dirty Harry, One flew over the cuckoos nest and how the west was won. It gives you an all new appreciation of the classic seeing them restored the way they are.

[GGX]

35mm film (which is the film stock used for The Hunt for Red October) has a resolution/level of detail much higher than even 1080p high-definition. With this in mind, Blu-ray is still technically a downgrade from the original source.

It's worth mentioning that Warner is creating a transfer of 'A Star is Born' for eventual release on Blu-ray using a 6k transfer from the original 35mm film elements. To put that in perspective: thats 6000 lines of information compared to the 1080 lines of detail 1080p maxes out at.

Blu-ray isnt adding any detail beyond what is already present in the source. Hell even 16mm film has enough detail for a high-def transfer. Let alone ultra high-res film stocks such as 65mm/70mm.

What I dont understand is why the OP was under the impression that older movies were recorded in 480i resolution (DVD quality). Hollywood movies arent exactly home videos.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by GGX

35mm film (which is the film stock used for The Hunt for Red October) has a resolution/level of detail much higher than even 1080p high-definition. With this in mind, Blu-ray is still technically a downgrade from the original source.

Blu-ray isnt adding any detail beyond what is already present in the source. Hell even 16mm film has enough detail for a high-def transfer. Let alone ultra high-res film stocks such as 65mm/70mm.

What I dont understand is why the OP was under the impression that older movies were recorded in 480i resolution (DVD quality). Hollywood movies arent exactly home videos.

What he said.

There is technically no "point where filmmakers started making films in Hi-Def" since the film stock has always been capable of extreme resolutions. It's the medium of storage and presentation for home media that has always determined the quality of a product.