A quick question about Blu-ray and older movies...

Josh5890

Josh5890

CAGiversary!
Feedback
87 (100%)
Hi, I have an ok DVD collection , around 100 or so, but I'm thinking about upgrading to Blu-ray. My question about Blu-ray is whether it is worht it for older movies like Raging Bull, The Graduate, and older James Bond movies. I know that newer movies are great on Blu-ray like Inglorious Bastards but can they really make older films look HD great? Thanks for any feedback guys.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Blank-Facepalm.gif
 
Well man to tell you the truth it definitely depends on the movie. If the movie was using special props or effects I would say keep the dvds. If it is just a regular movie then yeah upgrade. Examples: 1. Krull was one of my all time favs as a kid. Popped it in at high def and it was comical and looked some of the backgrounds looked like painted shoe boxes. 2. Coming to America: Hilarious movie love it, and it is doable in high def. Except for when they are in "Africa" or close up on some of the jewelery. (I promise the king's crowns look like burger king hats that have been bedazzled.) 3. Trading Places: Improving visual clarity doesn't really have an effect on any part of the movie. (Insert joke about Jamie Lee Curtis here). That's my 2 cents.
 
Bond movies are a mixed bag; Dr.No looks like it was filmed last year! However when you get to movies like Moonraker some of the bad rear projection scenes stand out. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are great too, amazing sound in particular on QOS.
 
It all depends. LiveCrazy and phenommsu have it right. I have read that in some cases the BD is worse then the DVD due to how bad they did the transfer. Film has a higher resolution then DVD and from what I hear even more then HD video. So they can take that 35mm film and remaster it in HD in 1080i or 1080p and put it on BD.

Also when it comes to the effects some times the video quality is so good the effects don't look like they are all that good or maybe rushed. I watched King Kong when I got my HD drive for my 360 and thought the movie looked good but I could tell Kong was out of place. I could tell it was all CG however the SD version after seeing it on TV looked good. I knew it was CG but it just didn't stand out so much.
 
it just depends from movie to movie.

2001 is amazing looking on Blu-Ray, while Wall Street looks god-awful.

Just check reviews on bluray.com, highdefdigest.com and digitalbits.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']
Just check reviews on bluray.com, highdefdigest.com and digitalbits.[/QUOTE]

Those sites provide some excellent reviews. I have found that a lot of the older black and white movies, really look great when bumped to blu-ray. They lose a lot of the soft edges, which makes everything look more lifelike. You dont notice the lack of color as much.
 
echo what has been said, varies from disc to disc based on how much effort the company put into releasing it.

www.Hddb.net has links to multiple reviews on most blu-rays from a variety of sources so you can find the general consensus on titles you are interested in.
 
[quote name='TctclMvPhase']Those sites provide some excellent reviews. I have found that a lot of the older black and white movies, really look great when bumped to blu-ray. They lose a lot of the soft edges, which makes everything look more lifelike. You dont notice the lack of color as much.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, my personal opinion is that the movies that look the best in high def are either really old movies that you never thought could look that good (Wizard of Oz is a perfect example. It blows my mind how crisp and new they can make a 70 year old film look) or really new movies where the technology and special effects are insane (Speed Racer, Star Trek, etc).

It seems that a lot of movies from the 70s/80s/90s just feel lackluster on Blu...unless the studio REALLY takes the time and goes over it with a fine tooth comb. But I just feel like those movies have less room for improvement.
 
My best advice: Always read reviews before you purchase a Blu-ray title. We should all be at the point now where we know the visual/audio/features before we pull the trigger, due to the high amount of double and triple dips from the DVD era. I'm a much pickier consumer these days.
 
With only 100 films, I'd recommend expanding out and diversifying your collection, regardless of what format it's in. You need to get some more movies first.

But, to make smart decisions when buying, read reviews and stick to companies that are known for great transfers, like The Criterion Collection.
 
http://www.blubeaver.ca/

I'm surprised no one has recommended blubeaver/dvdbeaver, amazing sites with screen captures and comparisons, this is the site that convinced me to make the switch to hi-def. they also review movies from all regions, and thankfully the blu-ray reviews for regions other than 1 will tell you if they are region free, as luckily some great releases from the UK from BFI can be played on any player.
 
[quote name='Josh5890']Hi, I have an ok DVD collection , around 100 or so, but I'm thinking about upgrading to Blu-ray. My question about Blu-ray is whether it is worht it for older movies like Raging Bull, The Graduate, and older James Bond movies. I know that newer movies are great on Blu-ray like Inglorious Bastards but can they really make older films look HD great? Thanks for any feedback guys.[/QUOTE]

www.blu-ray.com

Tremendous difference!! Check out the Searchers!!
 
[quote name='gojiboy']http://www.blubeaver.ca/

I'm surprised no one has recommended blubeaver/dvdbeaver, amazing sites with screen captures and comparisons, this is the site that convinced me to make the switch to hi-def. they also review movies from all regions, and thankfully the blu-ray reviews for regions other than 1 will tell you if they are region free, as luckily some great releases from the UK from BFI can be played on any player.[/QUOTE]

The funny thing about blubeaver/dvdbeaver is that if there is a single frame of nudity ANYWHERE in the movie, dude will find it and make a screencap of it.

Makes for interesting web browsing if you're in, say, a college computer lab.
 
[quote name='RichterIX']The funny thing about blubeaver/dvdbeaver is that if there is a single frame of nudity ANYWHERE in the movie, dude will find it and make a screencap of it.

Makes for interesting web browsing if you're in, say, a college computer lab.[/QUOTE]
You know, I've been reading DVDBeaver for years, always noticed that, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone mention it before. :D

I've made purchases based on those nudie screencaps.
 
[quote name='RichterIX']The funny thing about blubeaver/dvdbeaver is that if there is a single frame of nudity ANYWHERE in the movie, dude will find it and make a screencap of it.

Makes for interesting web browsing if you're in, say, a college computer lab.[/QUOTE]
Well, it does have beaver in the url... 8-[
 
I have not seen too many older(pre 1990) movies on blu ray but from my experience Blade Runner, and the Wizard of Oz are the only ones that blew my mind. The Godfathers/Full Metal Jacket/A Clockwork Orange were all good but not great.
 
[quote name='SLeeK719']I have not seen too many older(pre 1990) movies on blu ray but from my experience Blade Runner, and the Wizard of Oz are the only ones that blew my mind. The Godfathers/Full Metal Jacket/A Clockwork Orange were all good but not great.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's kind of odd how Kubrick's 2001 looks amazing, but Clockwork and Jacket don't...

I'm also shocked that Godfather isn't a stellar PQ disc. You'd think they would have kept the film in better condition, and even with the restoration, it's not terrific.
 
[quote name='sendme']
Also when it comes to the effects some times the video quality is so good the effects don't look like they are all that good or maybe rushed. I watched King Kong when I got my HD drive for my 360 and thought the movie looked good but I could tell Kong was out of place. I could tell it was all CG however the SD version after seeing it on TV looked good. I knew it was CG but it just didn't stand out so much.[/QUOTE]

I thought the HD version was superior to the DVD version and made the CG and special effects looks so much better. The DVD version was almost unwatchable because of the terrible looking effects while the HD version made the movie more enjoyable. I would have never watched King Kong again on DVD but the HD version was so much better that I watched it several times. Side note, I thought the 1979 version was a much better movie.

As far as upgrading to Blu, I have decide to wait until prices nose dive on many if not all the movies I want to upgrade. Perhaps only around 20 of my all time favorite movies are worth upgrading to HD. The rest can be enjoyed on regular SD.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']Yeah, it's kind of odd how Kubrick's 2001 looks amazing, but Clockwork and Jacket don't...

I'm also shocked that Godfather isn't a stellar PQ disc. You'd think they would have kept the film in better condition, and even with the restoration, it's not terrific.[/QUOTE]

Something was messed up with film in the 70s IIRC and that stuff didn't age well at all. Probably part of the reason for the difference in remaster quality in eras. I think that was why it was so hard to make Star Wars look good again, and you know money was no object with that.
 
I think there are plenty of older movies that look SIGNIFICANTLY better on Blu than on DVD. Obviously not everything can have the picture quality of Star Trek or Quantum of Solace or a Pixar movie so it isn't fair to judge older movie by that standard (different filming techniques). But I think, among many others, Godfather Trilogy, Blade Runner, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, the 007 movies, 2001, Bonnie and Clyde, Bullitt, Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, L.A. Confidential, Poltergeist, etc
 
[quote name='sendme']It all depends. LiveCrazy and phenommsu have it right. I have read that in some cases the BD is worse then the DVD due to how bad they did the transfer. Film has a higher resolution then DVD and from what I hear even more then HD video. So they can take that 35mm film and remaster it in HD in 1080i or 1080p and put it on BD.

Also when it comes to the effects some times the video quality is so good the effects don't look like they are all that good or maybe rushed. I watched King Kong when I got my HD drive for my 360 and thought the movie looked good but I could tell Kong was out of place. I could tell it was all CG however the SD version after seeing it on TV looked good. I knew it was CG but it just didn't stand out so much.[/QUOTE]

Close. Celluloid (film) is, in effect, infinite resolution. So as long as you rescan it at HD resolutions and do a proper remaster, it's going to look fantastic and definitely provides plenty of impetus to go with Blu-ray over DVD. Check out the DVD Beaver comparisons of the upcoming "Yojimbo" and "Days of Heaven" Blu-rays to their DVD predecessors if you don't believe me (and those are comparing Criterion against Criterion, so you know you're looking at the best possible DVD masters). "Sleeping Beauty" is another good example.

I do think there is a compelling point to be made for films with a lot of effects, mattes, etc. looking possibly worse at higher resolution. But as others have suggested, there is a certain charm to that. For instance, I was watching a Wallace & Gromit short on Blu-ray last night, and being able to see the fingerprints on the plasticine figures only added to the texture and sense of hand-craftedness of the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top