To Kill A Mockingbird classic Blu-ray Jan 31, 2012 Review

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

do they have the 100 Ann edition at Target?

Target.com says it's not sold in stores, but that's not always accurate.

[Chaotic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Target.com says it's not sold in stores, but that's not always accurate.

The site also says they dont sell The Thing blu-ray in stores too

[Snicket]

So where is the cheapest place for the digibook?



The cover art does not bother me as much now that i know it was part of the original artwork for the film...still kind of goofy looking though.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Picked this up and gave it a watch. As expected, the screenshots were not some abomination that failed to reflect the quality of the transfer. And, also as expected, the screenshots did not tell the whole story. Still, they were indicative.

I agree in large part with Robert A. Harris, caveats and all...though I disagree on the importance of some of those caveats, particularly in a "restored" presentation. The term "restoration" makes its goal explicit...to restore a film, as closely as humanly possible, to its original state. I don't believe that's been accomplished here, and I believe that the reasons it has not been accomplished are due to deliberate choices made by the "restorers." If you're trying to make an optical push look like an on-set zoom or track-in, then you're not staying true to the source. Period.

That said, much of what is on display in this transfer looks very nice, indeed. Natural and filmic, as it should. Unfortunately, the "grain averaging," intended to reduce the jarring effect of switching between shots taken from various elements of differing quality and generation, does not work so well for me. Because what it means is that we often cut from one shot which looks very good and natural to a shot where the grain has been filtered to the point of virtual nonexistence. This (to me, if not to the average consumer) is every bit as distracting as if they had left those portions grainier than the remainder. Even more so, I would say, as the appearance shifts between accurate rendering of a 35mm element and an appearance that very much resembles cheap HD video. I know that many would find the presence of heavier grain to be a greater distraction, but as someone who insists that film should look like film, this is more distracting to me.

But for the most part, my main complaint with this presentation is the handling of the optical push-ins. As stated, they're not remaining true to the inherent qualities of the optical process, but perhaps more troublesome is that the optical push-ins have gone from having pronounced, blown-up grain to simply becoming blurry as the push-in occurs. Again, this is down to personal taste, and some viewers may find this obvious and unnatural decrease in sharpness to be preferable to the blown-up grain inherent in a true optical push-in. I'm just not one of those viewers. And to say that this technique qualifies as "film restoration" is, in my view, a false statement.

To paraphrase the old children's rhyme, when To Kill a Mockingbird looks good, it looks very, very good...and when it looks bad, it thankfully doesn't look horrid (though it comes close at times, in my personal opinion). Is it the best the film has ever looked on home video? I would say so...and I expected as much. But in terms of restoration, it's certainly no Godfather. I find myself agreeing with the AVS Forum review, which rated this video transfer in the "Good" range...not "Excellent," and certainly not "Reference." This is a good presentation. It has its faults, and also its strong redeeming qualities. It does little to bolster my confidence in Universal's future "restorations," but there's always the hope that faced with less challenging film elements, they may go easier on the digital manipulations.

If I were assigning this a numerical rating on a scale of 1 to 5, I'd probably give it about a 4, if I were feeling generous. I stand firmly behind the statement that rating this transfer a perfect 5/5 is a joke, and essentially renders the entire scale system on this site worthless. This may be a good transfer, but it's far from perfect.

And yes...this shot really does look this bad:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...52&position=18

If anything, I'd say it looks worse in motion. Especially compared to one or two later shots from the same angle, which look very good.

The optical push-ins have never been sharp. They are blurry because that's what happens in an optical push-in. Whether they're MORE blurry is something else, but they were never ever sharp or in focus.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

The optical push-ins have never been sharp. They are blurry because that's what happens in an optical push-in. Whether they're MORE blurry is something else, but they were never ever sharp or in focus.

What I intended to convey is that they are unquestionably far more blurry, and unnaturally so...it's not difficult to tell the difference between decreased resolution due to a photochemical process and an excessive loss in sharpness due to digital filtering applied on top of said process. The Restoring the Classics featurette showed a "Before and After" demonstration which, albeit unintentionally, demonstrates just how much additional sharpness is lost due to the grain "averaging," and this is what gives these shots an increased appearance of Vaseline-like smoothness as the push-in occurs. Before the filtering, yes, there was a slight loss in sharpness combined with heightened grain. But this at least looked natural. As presented on this transfer, the shots start out looking natural, and become progressively less so...ending up with a highly processed digital video appearance after the push-in. Anyone who knows what an optical push-in should look like will notice this at once...and even those who don't should be able to pick up on the fact that these shots simply don't look natural. Honestly, the rest of the grain filtering is only mildly distracting...it does throw me off to see a shot that looks like a nice 35mm element juxtaposed with a shot that more closely resembles HD video...but it's the kind of thing that I can squint and accept. I'm sure that in watching this transfer more, I will be able to get used to that. But the push-ins are my main gripe with the transfer, as it is much more jarring when a single shot begins with a natural appearance, and ends up looking like something akin to HD kinescope.

As I said, this is not an altogether bad presentation. I would rate it as good. Not great, and certainly not perfect...but good. It's really the fact that they've deliberately altered the appearance of the film (particularly in the push-ins), while claiming restoration, that rankles me. Don't get me wrong...I appreciate the amount of work that Universal put into rebuilding this film from the ground up, using the elements that were available to them. I just wish they'd gone a little easier on the digital processing, as it gives the transfer more of an uneven appearance, at least to my mind, than if they'd been more prudent with their digital toolbox.

But obviously, each viewer's mileage will vary. I, for one, am the kind of viewer who can readily accept the restoration of Metropolis, despite the fact that the reinstated footage, from a 16mm source, is necessarily softer, with less detail and significantly more grain and damage, and boxed on two sides in order to preserve the original orientation of the cropped 16mm image. I'm sure this would drive many viewers crazy, but I accept it as the nature of restoration. One does everything that one can to get as close as possible to the original presentation. And Metropolis, in spite of the source limitations, succeeds in restoring that film. In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, the situation was not quite so dire as with Metropolis, and is more comparable to The Godfather, a film whose original elements were also in a dire state. The Godfather on BD, however, succeeds in looking beautifully filmic from first frame to last. Is the viewer still privy to some of the source limitations? Of course, and necessarily so. But in the end, The Godfather's transfer strongly resembles a film print, and no doubt looks much better than any of the original theatrical prints. Successful restoration. To Kill a Mockingbird is a not-so-successful restoration. They accomplished a great deal in their restoration, without question...but some of those triumphs are, at least in my view, undermined by some rather overzealous filtering. As a transfer, it's good, if not quite ideal. But as a restoration, I'm somewhat disappointed.

I do think this effort shows that the folks at Universal have their hearts in the right place...it's their heads that concern me. Just because one can do something, doesn't necessarily mean that one should. And had Universal pulled out a few less digital stops here, this could have been an excellent restoration in my eyes, rather than just a good transfer. Again, I hope that in cases where they are faced with film elements less challenging than those they had to work with for To Kill a Mockingbird, they will feel less inclined to monkey with the grain structure. Because I really am hoping for the best when it comes to films like Jaws and The Sting.

Ultimately, this transfer is certainly acceptable...good, even...definitely not unwatchable by any stretch. But it's easy to see how it could have been better, and I wish that the review on this site reflected that understanding, rather than awarding it a misleading score of 5/5. Consumers are certainly responsible for their own purchases, but reviews can help them to make informed decisions, and I think that a certain responsibility goes along with that. I don't think that Jeffrey Kaufmann was being dishonest in his review...I just don't think he was being critical enough. He is, for all intents and purposes, a critic...it's his business to scrutinize. And awarding perfect marks to this presentation, in my view, reflects a lack of scrutiny. I only hope that my impressions of the disc will be of some use to like-minded viewers, who always hope that a transfer will do its best to represent the original look of the film. For those who aren't as picky, I say buy it with confidence. And for those like me, I still say buy it if you want the film in HD...but with the caveats that I've mentioned here. Much of the presentation looks beautiful...it's simply uneven throughout. But it's the best we've got, so if you love the film, go for it.

[mzupeman]

I love this site for its community and the collection tracking and all that stuff, but its reviews are its biggest sore spot, for certain. Some are really well written, but some are obviously written by people who really have no overview of reference when it comes to grading the quality of any given release. I got this today myself, and the transfer does like quite good. The best it's ever looked, and I think the hyperbolic talk in this thread prior to its release made it sound WAY worse than it is... but a 5/5? No. It just isn't.

That's not to say that reviewing is easy - I know myself that it isn't. You're never going to please everyone, and at the end of any review that you've written, all that you're putting up there for people to see is your opinion. But people rant and rave on forums and say, "WHY don't they have SOME kind of system in place to make all their ratings make sense?!?!" Of course, it's because there's no exact science or art to grading a release and its quality - As this thread alone seems to prove, there are so many different things various people see when they see a transfer. One person will call Jurassic Park reference quality for example, another will say it's the worst transfer they've ever seen. People seem to forget that reviewing, again, all comes down to opinion and that the reviewers aren't machines. Furthermore, they also forget that many reviewers on many websites don't get paid to write a glowing review either. Many of us merely do it because we love to do it.

But, then again, with all this chatter about what's been done to this release on the net, and even on this very same website where the review came from, it's obvious that the reviewer did -zero- research, and this should have been mentioned in his review. He certainly could have said, "I don't see what the hub-bub is all about, I think it's a 5/5", but to ignore this 'issue' completely? Kind of irresponsible.

[Rizor]

Decided to skim through the BD. Seems rather inconsistent. Some of it looks very good. Other times, it's a cartoon. Check out the section between 10 through 12 minutes. It's filtered to death.

I've never really found grain distracting so I would've preferred those grainier sections being left alone. Instead they filtered them to death and applied DNR elsewhere to the movie as well.

Their work isn't the best, but isn't this exactly the kind of job Lowry does so well?

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Picked this up and gave it a watch. As expected, the screenshots were not some abomination that failed to reflect the quality of the transfer. And, also as expected, the screenshots did not tell the whole story. Still, they were indicative.

I agree in large part with Robert A. Harris, caveats and all...though I disagree on the importance of some of those caveats, particularly in a "restored" presentation. The term "restoration" makes its goal explicit...to restore a film, as closely as humanly possible, to its original state. I don't believe that's been accomplished here, and I believe that the reasons it has not been accomplished are due to deliberate choices made by the "restorers." If you're trying to make an optical push look like an on-set zoom or track-in, then you're not staying true to the source. Period.

That said, much of what is on display in this transfer looks very nice, indeed. Natural and filmic, as it should. Unfortunately, the "grain averaging," intended to reduce the jarring effect of switching between shots taken from various elements of differing quality and generation, does not work so well for me. Because what it means is that we often cut from one shot which looks very good and natural to a shot where the grain has been filtered to the point of virtual nonexistence. This (to me, if not to the average consumer) is every bit as distracting as if they had left those portions grainier than the remainder. Even more so, I would say, as the appearance shifts between accurate rendering of a 35mm element and an appearance that very much resembles cheap HD video. I know that many would find the presence of heavier grain to be a greater distraction, but as someone who insists that film should look like film, this is more distracting to me.

But for the most part, my main complaint with this presentation is the handling of the optical push-ins. As stated, they're not remaining true to the inherent qualities of the optical process, but perhaps more troublesome is that the optical push-ins have gone from having pronounced, blown-up grain to simply becoming blurry as the push-in occurs. Again, this is down to personal taste, and some viewers may find this obvious and unnatural decrease in sharpness to be preferable to the blown-up grain inherent in a true optical push-in. I'm just not one of those viewers. And to say that this technique qualifies as "film restoration" is, in my view, a false statement.

To paraphrase the old children's rhyme, when To Kill a Mockingbird looks good, it looks very, very good...and when it looks bad, it thankfully doesn't look horrid (though it comes close at times, in my personal opinion). Is it the best the film has ever looked on home video? I would say so...and I expected as much. But in terms of restoration, it's certainly no Godfather. I find myself agreeing with the AVS Forum review, which rated this video transfer in the "Good" range...not "Excellent," and certainly not "Reference." This is a good presentation. It has its faults, and also its strong redeeming qualities. It does little to bolster my confidence in Universal's future "restorations," but there's always the hope that faced with less challenging film elements, they may go easier on the digital manipulations.

If I were assigning this a numerical rating on a scale of 1 to 5, I'd probably give it about a 4, if I were feeling generous. I stand firmly behind the statement that rating this transfer a perfect 5/5 is a joke, and essentially renders the entire scale system on this site worthless. This may be a good transfer, but it's far from perfect.

And yes...this shot really does look this bad:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...52&position=18

If anything, I'd say it looks worse in motion. Especially compared to one or two later shots from the same angle, which look very good.

I agree with everything you said here, I wish I would have written it. Except for the part about giving it a four. More like a 3 IMO. Maybe 3.5.

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

I love this site for its community and the collection tracking and all that stuff, but its reviews are its biggest sore spot, for certain. Some are really well written, but some are obviously written by people who really have no overview of reference when it comes to grading the quality of any given release. I got this today myself, and the transfer does like quite good. The best it's ever looked, and I think the hyperbolic talk in this thread prior to its release made it sound WAY worse than it is... but a 5/5? No. It just isn't.

That's not to say that reviewing is easy - I know myself that it isn't. You're never going to please everyone, and at the end of any review that you've written, all that you're putting up there for people to see is your opinion. But people rant and rave on forums and say, "WHY don't they have SOME kind of system in place to make all their ratings make sense?!?!" Of course, it's because there's no exact science or art to grading a release and its quality - As this thread alone seems to prove, there are so many different things various people see when they see a transfer. One person will call Jurassic Park reference quality for example, another will say it's the worst transfer they've ever seen. People seem to forget that reviewing, again, all comes down to opinion and that the reviewers aren't machines. Furthermore, they also forget that many reviewers on many websites don't get paid to write a glowing review either. Many of us merely do it because we love to do it.

But, then again, with all this chatter about what's been done to this release on the net, and even on this very same website where the review came from, it's obvious that the reviewer did -zero- research, and this should have been mentioned in his review. He certainly could have said, "I don't see what the hub-bub is all about, I think it's a 5/5", but to ignore this 'issue' completely? Kind of irresponsible.

I suppose for a reviewer its one thing but personally I do my best to try to avoid a good deal of the PQ discussion on Blu-rays here at Blu-ray.com because it is much easier for me to ignore as much as I am capable of ignoring because as it has always been with home video, our complaints do not do a whole lot in most cases so its easier for me to try and enjoy my media the best I can possibly enjoy it because I paid good money for it and its not likely gonna get better (a new transfer) most of the time.
I just scan thru the posts here in the Blu-ray Movies forum and just pass posts that look a bit too counterproductive. Anyhow, this method has worked very well for me over the years. Yes I do have a number of Blu-rays that got an awful lot of negative talk here at the forum and I have to agree will some of it but in most cases the Blu-ray ends up looking and sounding far better that what id have expected given all the negative talk here in the movies forum.

[mitch22]

Haven't really watched this movie before. Watched it in bits and pieces in english class back in grade 9. Just finished it now though and.......




What a great movie.


That is all, good day.

The movie looks great as well (to the guy below) I've never seen Patton.

[Drewza89]

Question for owners of the blu-ray: How waxy is this in comparison to the blu-ray of Patton? I had to sell my copy of Patton because I found the DNR distracting. Am I better off sticking with my Mockingbird DVD?

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by bentvalve

I just scan thru the posts here in the Blu-ray Movies forum and just pass posts that look a bit too counterproductive. Anyhow, this method has worked very well for me over the years. Yes I do have a number of Blu-rays that got an awful lot of negative talk here at the forum and I have to agree will some of it but in most cases the Blu-ray ends up looking and sounding far better that what id have expected given all the negative talk here in the movies forum.

I have to agree with the last, that's been my experience as well. "Das Boot" comes to mind~ there was a lot of negativity around that release as well and it, in fact, looked great to my untrained eye. Seems to be two things at work here~ lovers of the blu-ray format, and I am one for all the obvious reasons, know what it can be when all the conditions and prerequisites are in order, and dream of a reality where every movie ever released should be able to be 'restored' to 'reference quality'. Of course this won't or can't happen and it's certainly not the case that its usually ineptitude or indifference on the part of those doing the restoring that is the reason for this. I have to believe that the people doing the work care deeply about what they are doing and are probably not interested only about turning out product on the cheap.

Secondly, too often the critics (on these threads) seem to lose sight of the movie for the trees, or rather the technical details. I know that this is going to be the preoccupation of people who have worked in the industry and in restorative work in particular but for the layman it's still "To Kill a Mockingbird", (or any other great title) looking as good as it ever will, and delivering the same awesome cinematic punch as ever, and isn't this pretty much the point of it all?

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Drewza89

Question for owners of the blu-ray: How waxy is this in comparison to the blu-ray of Patton? I had to sell my copy of Patton because I found the DNR distracting. Am I better off sticking with my Mockingbird DVD?

Its not nearly the fiasco Patton was. Mockingbird actually looks pretty good. People always compare a blu to the DVD, but remember, DVDs had a lot of sharpening applied since the resolution was so low. There is some DNR applied but it doesn't bother me so much here, and its certainly not obtrusive in every shot.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

I agree with everything you said here, I wish I would have written it. Except for the part about giving it a four. More like a 3 IMO. Maybe 3.5.

As I said, a 4 would be me being generous. All things being equal, I'd be more inclined to give it a 3.5, but considering how bad it could have been, I might be willing to tack on an extra half-point just as a sort of "Universal handicap." haha

Originally Posted by Drewza89

Question for owners of the blu-ray: How waxy is this in comparison to the blu-ray of Patton? I had to sell my copy of Patton because I found the DNR distracting. Am I better off sticking with my Mockingbird DVD?

This is not as bad a transfer as Patton. Much of the footage on display in this transfer has not been grain-reduced at all...at least not that my eye can detect. The main problem for me is that said footage is intercut with footage from other elements which were a few generations further down the line, and in order to "average out" the grain levels, Universal did a lot of grain reduction on these shots...often to the point of virtually no grain at all. And I will say, I do think those shots look rather poor. Compared to the rest of the presentation, they appear flat, textureless, and lacking in fine detail. Also, the optical push-ins begin with a nice, unaltered 35mm appearance, then become progressively digitally softened...to the point that more often than not, they appear woefully and unnaturally out of focus.

It's a transfer that has its strong points and its weak points. In the shots where it hasn't been filtered, it looks quite strong...which left me wishing that the other shots could have looked as natural, even if the elements weren't as pristine. But it's not like Patton, which is a wax-job from start to finish.

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

Seems to be two things at work here~ lovers of the blu-ray format, and I am one for all the obvious reasons, know what it can be when all the conditions and prerequisites are in order, and dream of a reality where every movie ever released should be able to be 'restored' to 'reference quality'.

How about the third option? Those of us who want a film to be restored when the studio that's distributing it trumpets it as a RESTORED TRANSFER?

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

...it's still "To Kill a Mockingbird", (or any other great title) looking as good as it ever will...

And that is precisely the sticky point for some of us, because it's a FACT that it could look better than this. But since this intermittently grain-reduced transfer is being considered the definitive restoration by Universal, performed at great expense with no doubt hundreds of man-hours put in, this probably is the best it will ever look. And that's a shame. The film, as you say, is great...it deserves better than the treatment it was given, and this restoration was the opportunity to give it its due. The ball was dropped. It's still a decent transfer...but when a distributor uses the word "restoration," film-lovers should be able to expect more than "decent" results.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

And that is precisely the sticky point for some of us, because it's a FACT that it could look better than this. But since this intermittently grain-reduced transfer is being considered the definitive restoration by Universal, performed at great expense with no doubt hundreds of man-hours put in, this probably is the best it will ever look. And that's a shame. The film, as you say, is great...it deserves better than the treatment it was given, and this restoration was the opportunity to give it its due. The ball was dropped. It's still a decent transfer...but when a distributor uses the word "restoration," film-lovers should be able to expect more than "decent" results.

Not disagreeing for a minute! But it's what we have and sometimes we have to choose our battles. It's not Iran going nuclear after all...

Something worth starting a campaign for would be to find someone, somewhere, willing to restore and release "Manot of the Spring" and "Jean de Florette" to blu-ray! Considering the quality of the DVD's they could be spectacular! But I digress...

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

Not disagreeing for a minute! But it's what we have and sometimes we have to choose our battles. It's not Iran going nuclear after all...

Something worth starting a campaign for would be to find someone, somewhere, willing to restore and release "Manot of the Spring" and "Jean de Florette" to blu-ray! Considering the quality of the DVD's they could be spectacular! But I digress...

And I won't disagree the slightest bit with your digression.

The issue here is, if enough complaints about these questionable "restoration" techniques are voiced, maybe things will get better. Then again, maybe not. But I think there's at least a better chance that way than if people just take whatever they're given without raising the slightest objection, regardless of quality. And if reviewers are going to give a transfer like this one perfect marks, then it falls upon the average consumer to lodge those complaints, whether they fall on deaf ears or not. Obviously, it's not an earth-shattering issue...but nor are we here to discuss earth-shattering issues. We're here to discuss films, and their releases on the Blu-ray format. So I just try to voice my own opinions on that subject.

And honestly, if this were just an average, run-of-the-mill BD release, I wouldn't be so hard on its transfer. But it's not. It's the first of the highly-touted "restored classics" that Universal will be releasing throughout the course of the year, to commemorate their 100th anniversary. And it is for that reason that I'm being as critical as I am (well, that and the fact that the site reviewer gave it a perfect 5/5 score when it's far from perfect). Universal has, let's face it, a poor track record with catalog releases, and in spite of that, we're all hoping for the best with their restorations of their most beloved classic films. So when the first of those is released, and it has transfer issues like those on display here, I personally think it bears not only mentioning, but also discussion.

For the record, in watching the "Restoring the Classics" featurette (in proper HD, finally...not simply on a YouTube video), it seems like they're doing a lot of good work on films like All Quiet on the Western Front and the classic Dracula and Frankenstein films, among others...so I'm still keeping my hopes high for those releases. I can only hope that they won't be disappointments. Because as I said, for an everyday transfer, To Kill a Mockingbird looks pretty good...but as a "restored classic," it's something of a disappointment. At least in my book.

[ChiefSequatchie]

Originally Posted by Snicket

So where is the cheapest place for the digibook?



The cover art does not bother me as much now that i know it was part of the original artwork for the film...still kind of goofy looking though.

I picked the digibook up tonight at my local Wal-Mart for $24.96!




.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by ChiefSequatchie

I picked the digibook up tonight at my local Wal-Mart for $24.96!

Thanks! I was afraid my question got lost in the endless debate.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

And I won't disagree the slightest bit with your digression.

Manon of the Spring, even.

Actually I made many of the same points as you are making in a posting on a "Scarface" board when it's release was imminent and the reviews were reflecting issues with that production. Not sure why I'm less sanguine now on the issue than I was then. Perhaps the fact that Mockingbird was released fifty years ago and my expectations weren't quite as high as they were for the more recent, comparatively, Scarface release. Or maybe it's the result of seeing flecked and streaked clips of Mockingbird in a PBS (I think) homage to Gregory Peck just a few nights ago, that were really dreadful, and being grateful for any improvement.



Oh Noooo!! It's a disgruntled Wal-Mart Shopper!!

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

Manon of the Spring, even.

Actually I made many of the same points as you are making in a posting on a "Scarface" board when it's release was imminent and the reviews were reflecting issues with that production. Not sure why I'm less sanguine now on the issue than I was then. Perhaps the fact that Mockingbird was released fifty years ago and my expectations weren't quite as high as they were for the more recent, comparatively, Scarface release. Or maybe it's the result of seeing flecked and streaked clips of Mockingbird in a PBS (I think) homage to Gregory Peck just a few nights ago, that were really dreadful, and being grateful for any improvement.

Ah...see, I expected less from Scarface for a couple of reasons.

Number One: It wasn't a restoration. As such, I basically assumed that Universal would do what they usually do for catalog releases...recycle the latest HD video master they had on hand (in this case, the one they struck for the Platinum Edition DVD), and serve it up in 1080p. A theory which was confirmed by, Number Two: I saw the 4K master digitally projected on the big screen prior to the BD release, and it was pretty clear that it was, in fact, the same-old-same-old Platinum master. So really, when I got the BD, it looked slightly better than I'd anticipated, simply by virtue of not being blown up to fill a full-sized cinema screen. haha

Age isn't so much an issue here as the state of the original elements. I could point to many films that are much older than To Kill a Mockingbird, that look much better (and far more consistent) on BD. Some of them from the 1920s. And I do cut Universal some slack for the fact that the elements were not in good shape. But at the same time, I look to the restorations on the first two Godfather films, which serve as reminders that even when the original elements aren't in good shape, there are alternatives to making with the grain reduction on the worse elements, and pretending that this somehow makes them match the better elements.

Citizen Kane is a title that looks considerably better on BD than To Kill a Mockingbird, and it was made more than twenty years prior (not to mention that the original camera negative no longer exists)...and what really gets me is that the same reviewer who awarded To Kill a Mockingbird a perfect 5/5 score knocked half a point off of Kane's PQ score for some truly minor edge-enhancement artifacts. Would I have preferred Kane without the EE? Sure. Did it still look much better, and far more filmic, than To Kill a Mockingbird? Absolutely.