Old Films on Blu-ray: Are They Worth It?
Chris attempts to dispel the myth that old films aren't worth the BD treatment
One of the common misconceptions with Blu-ray is that it only offers a significant advantage over DVD if the film was shot within the last five to ten years. In fact, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read statements from people claiming that it’s not worth owning ‘X’ film on Blu-ray because it wasn’t shot in high-definition. With all the jargon surrounding the format it’s hardly surprising that many people are fundamentally confused, but this short article aims to dispel the myth that only new films are worthy of the Blu-ray treatment.
While true that newer titles are often more visually impressive than catalogue releases, this is largely due to the way in which modern features are filmed and transferred to digital media. Many recent blockbusters—such as James Cameron’s record-breaking Avatar—were shot in digital high-definition. Because no film is involved the resulting images are usually exceptionally clean and the Blu-ray editions are largely flawless. However, the majority of motion pictures were and are shot on 35mm film, which actually has a much greater resolution than Blu-ray and the kind of digital cameras used to film Avatar.
What this means is that with the right amount of care and attention older films are quite capable of looking spectacular on Blu-ray because they already contain more resolution than the format can handle. Of course not all distributors are willing to spend the required time and money to ensure that older titles look their best, but more often than not even the most pedestrian of catalogue titles will offer an improvement over the DVD edition. Let’s take a look at some examples (click the images for larger versions):
First, let’s examine an unassuming film from the early nineties that has received only ‘no-frills’ releases to date. 1993’s Rising Sun (starring Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes) isn’t a particularly glossy movie, and with its grainy image and fairly muted colour palette the DVD release looks a little shoddy by today’s standards.
Now let’s examine the same frame from the Blu-ray release, which is a lowly catalogue title encoded in MPEG-2 and presented on a single-layered BD25. At first the differences appear to be somewhat superficial, but if you take a closer look you’ll see that the grain resolution is far superior and the colours are more natural. You might also notice how the framing has been slightly altered. You might think that it's an odd choice for this article, but I wanted to demonstrate how even less than ideal sources can benefit from the high-definition treatment with even minimal restorative work. It's also worth bearing in mind that the Blu-ray version will look significantly better on larger screens, where even tiny flaws are more noticeable.
Okay, so we’ve looked at one example of how Blu-ray can offer subtle improvements on even the least glamorous of titles, but what about an old classic? For this example let’s go all the way back to 1972 with Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather. The original DVD was one of my treasured possessions when it was originally released, but it’s really starting to show its age now.
For the Blu-ray release the film underwent a complete restoration supervised by Coppola himself. The image was cleaned, the colour timing was corrected, and the whole thing was scanned at high-resolution before being transferred to Blu-ray with a high bitrate AVC encode. As you can see, virtually every facet of the image demonstrates a marked improvement over the DVD version. The most obvious enhancement is the level of detail, which reveals hitherto unforeseen texture in clothing and scenery. You can also see that the characters' faces are no longer blurry messes, colour is more natural, and the brightness and contrast have been brought in line with Coppola's original intentions. It still doesn't look like a glossy feature from 2010, but it's not meant to. The purpose of Blu-ray is to offer an audio-visual presentation as close to the filmmakers' intentions as possible, and this is a great example of a director taking the opportunity to create the definitive version of their work.
Now let’s examine a slightly more recent film, Ridley Scott’s 1982 sci-fi classic Blade Runner. This film has received more DVD releases than most, but this screen capture is taken from the director’s cut version released in 2005. It’s a clear step up from the original DVD (which was horrible), and although it has some problems with dirt if you’d never seen another version you could be forgiven for thinking that it’s about as good as the film could ever look. However, with the right amount of time and effort it’s possible to coax even more out of the film, especially on Blu-ray.
This image is taken from the fully restored ‘Final Cut’ of the film on Blu-ray. The improvements should be immediately obvious to anyone. Whereas the bulbs on the giant video wall blurred into one another on the DVD they are now individually identifiable, as are the windows. The text on the various billboards is much sharper, colours are vastly improved, and the image is free from dirt. Blade Runner is yet another example of the huge benefits of involving the filmmakers when creating a new HD release.
Okay, so far we've compared the Blu-ray versions of films to their ageing DVD counterparts, but what if we were to compare a Blu-ray transfer to a DVD transfer that has also been remasterd? Would the differences be as dramatic? For this next comparison let’s go all the way back to 1939 and the classic The Wizard of Oz, which recently underwent a costly and time-consuming restoration. Here's a shot from that DVD.
Looks pretty great, right? Well yes, it does, but what about the Blu-ray? Can it improve on the fully-restored DVD release? You bet it can! The Wizard of Oz is one of the best examples of how to properly restore an older film to its former glory. Just look at all of the detail contained in the image; you can clearly make out the chequered pattern on Dorothy’s dress and the intricate textures of the Good Witch of the North’s costume. Blurry faces and background information become clear and the colours are improved, all without destroying the film grain.
So far we’ve compared the Blu-ray editions of films to both older untouched DVDs and fully restored DVDs. I’d like to think that Blu-ray’s visual advantages are obvious, but there are those who are not always happy with the way films look in high-definition. For our final example we’re going to look at to 1987’s Predator, starring everyone’s favourite ‘Governator’. The DVD release wasn’t given a lot of TLC; even later anamorphic editions left something to be desired. Predator has always been notable for its heavy grain, due largely to the shooting methods employed when it was originally filmed, and this screen shot demonstrates DVD’s limitations when it comes to accurately resolving the grain (notice how clumpy it is, especially on the green shirt).
Early in Blu-ray’s lifecycle Fox released a bare-bones edition of Predator encoded with MPEG-2 and crammed onto a BD25. The release was not without problems, mainly dirt on the print and compression artefacts that appeared at numerous intervals throughout the film. Even so, I think it’s evident from the screen capture below that this less than ideal release of Predator still offers significant advantages over the DVD release, with superior grain resolution, detail and colour rendition. However, many people were unhappy with this version and clamoured for a remastered release using a modern codec. It appears that Fox was listening, as they are soon to release a ‘digitally restored’ version of the film…
Here we have a screen capture from that new release of the film. I had hoped that Fox would simply take the opportunity to perform some moderate dirt and scratch removal and encode the film with a modern codec like AVC to avoid the bothersome compression issues, but unfortunately it was not to be. They instead went to town on Predator with various digital manipulations designed to ‘improve’ the look of the film, the results of which speak volumes.
This image highlights the problems associated with over-processing a title to make it look more like a modern production in order to appease ‘grain haters’. As previously stated, Predator has historically been a very grainy feature film, but in trying to bring it in line with the quality expected by viewers used to watching glossy high-definition TV and modern blockbusters the disc’s producers have gone too far. You’ll notice how virtually all of the grain has been scrubbed away, leaving the image looking more akin to something shot on video than celluloid. Unfortunately when it comes to film, grain is detail, so when you remove it you also remove elements of the picture that were supposed to be there. Just look at Arnie’s face—he looks like a waxwork! Film is not reality and grain—be it heavy or light—is one of the things that defines the look of a film. The only features that shouldn’t have any grain are those where the filmmakers intend its absence, such as those shot on digital video. Even then many directors chose to add a layer of digital grain to their films for atmospheric purposes ( 300 is a good example of this).
Of course there are some people who prefer this over-sanitised look, but most film enthusiasts would prefer that their Blu-ray releases represent the filmmakers’ original intentions, at least as much as possible. Such overzealous application of DNR is detrimental to the film and is unfortunately becoming more commonplace as the Blu-ray format matures. If you glance up the page to The Wizard of Oz you’ll see that it is entirely possible to restore older films to ‘as-new’ condition without compromising their integrity. However, it is not an inexpensive process, which leads many companies to take the cheaper option of digitally manipulating an older master to create a ‘new’ transfer. It’s unfortunate, and I wish that said companies would simply present a film-like image on their catalogue releases rather than scrubbing them to the point of distraction. The vast majority of HDTVs have viewing modes that will reduce or even eliminate grain, so why not leave it as-is and let the consumer choose whether or not to remove it?
Thankfully images like the one above are the exception rather than the rule (at least for now), and the vast majority of Blu-ray titles look fantastic. So please, the next time one of your favourite catalogue films is released on Blu-ray don’t dismiss it because it wasn’t filmed in ‘HD’. As I hope to have demonstrated here, it is entirely possible to provide beautiful, film-like presentations of features shot twenty, forty, or even seventy years ago. Just be sure to keep an eye on review sites like ours to be sure that what you’re buying is worthy of your hard-earned money!
Editorial by Chris Gould
While true that newer titles are often more visually impressive than catalogue releases, this is largely due to the way in which modern features are filmed and transferred to digital media. Many recent blockbusters—such as James Cameron’s record-breaking Avatar—were shot in digital high-definition. Because no film is involved the resulting images are usually exceptionally clean and the Blu-ray editions are largely flawless. However, the majority of motion pictures were and are shot on 35mm film, which actually has a much greater resolution than Blu-ray and the kind of digital cameras used to film Avatar.
What this means is that with the right amount of care and attention older films are quite capable of looking spectacular on Blu-ray because they already contain more resolution than the format can handle. Of course not all distributors are willing to spend the required time and money to ensure that older titles look their best, but more often than not even the most pedestrian of catalogue titles will offer an improvement over the DVD edition. Let’s take a look at some examples (click the images for larger versions):
First, let’s examine an unassuming film from the early nineties that has received only ‘no-frills’ releases to date. 1993’s Rising Sun (starring Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes) isn’t a particularly glossy movie, and with its grainy image and fairly muted colour palette the DVD release looks a little shoddy by today’s standards.
Now let’s examine the same frame from the Blu-ray release, which is a lowly catalogue title encoded in MPEG-2 and presented on a single-layered BD25. At first the differences appear to be somewhat superficial, but if you take a closer look you’ll see that the grain resolution is far superior and the colours are more natural. You might also notice how the framing has been slightly altered. You might think that it's an odd choice for this article, but I wanted to demonstrate how even less than ideal sources can benefit from the high-definition treatment with even minimal restorative work. It's also worth bearing in mind that the Blu-ray version will look significantly better on larger screens, where even tiny flaws are more noticeable.
Okay, so we’ve looked at one example of how Blu-ray can offer subtle improvements on even the least glamorous of titles, but what about an old classic? For this example let’s go all the way back to 1972 with Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather. The original DVD was one of my treasured possessions when it was originally released, but it’s really starting to show its age now.
For the Blu-ray release the film underwent a complete restoration supervised by Coppola himself. The image was cleaned, the colour timing was corrected, and the whole thing was scanned at high-resolution before being transferred to Blu-ray with a high bitrate AVC encode. As you can see, virtually every facet of the image demonstrates a marked improvement over the DVD version. The most obvious enhancement is the level of detail, which reveals hitherto unforeseen texture in clothing and scenery. You can also see that the characters' faces are no longer blurry messes, colour is more natural, and the brightness and contrast have been brought in line with Coppola's original intentions. It still doesn't look like a glossy feature from 2010, but it's not meant to. The purpose of Blu-ray is to offer an audio-visual presentation as close to the filmmakers' intentions as possible, and this is a great example of a director taking the opportunity to create the definitive version of their work.
Now let’s examine a slightly more recent film, Ridley Scott’s 1982 sci-fi classic Blade Runner. This film has received more DVD releases than most, but this screen capture is taken from the director’s cut version released in 2005. It’s a clear step up from the original DVD (which was horrible), and although it has some problems with dirt if you’d never seen another version you could be forgiven for thinking that it’s about as good as the film could ever look. However, with the right amount of time and effort it’s possible to coax even more out of the film, especially on Blu-ray.
This image is taken from the fully restored ‘Final Cut’ of the film on Blu-ray. The improvements should be immediately obvious to anyone. Whereas the bulbs on the giant video wall blurred into one another on the DVD they are now individually identifiable, as are the windows. The text on the various billboards is much sharper, colours are vastly improved, and the image is free from dirt. Blade Runner is yet another example of the huge benefits of involving the filmmakers when creating a new HD release.
Okay, so far we've compared the Blu-ray versions of films to their ageing DVD counterparts, but what if we were to compare a Blu-ray transfer to a DVD transfer that has also been remasterd? Would the differences be as dramatic? For this next comparison let’s go all the way back to 1939 and the classic The Wizard of Oz, which recently underwent a costly and time-consuming restoration. Here's a shot from that DVD.
Looks pretty great, right? Well yes, it does, but what about the Blu-ray? Can it improve on the fully-restored DVD release? You bet it can! The Wizard of Oz is one of the best examples of how to properly restore an older film to its former glory. Just look at all of the detail contained in the image; you can clearly make out the chequered pattern on Dorothy’s dress and the intricate textures of the Good Witch of the North’s costume. Blurry faces and background information become clear and the colours are improved, all without destroying the film grain.
So far we’ve compared the Blu-ray editions of films to both older untouched DVDs and fully restored DVDs. I’d like to think that Blu-ray’s visual advantages are obvious, but there are those who are not always happy with the way films look in high-definition. For our final example we’re going to look at to 1987’s Predator, starring everyone’s favourite ‘Governator’. The DVD release wasn’t given a lot of TLC; even later anamorphic editions left something to be desired. Predator has always been notable for its heavy grain, due largely to the shooting methods employed when it was originally filmed, and this screen shot demonstrates DVD’s limitations when it comes to accurately resolving the grain (notice how clumpy it is, especially on the green shirt).
Early in Blu-ray’s lifecycle Fox released a bare-bones edition of Predator encoded with MPEG-2 and crammed onto a BD25. The release was not without problems, mainly dirt on the print and compression artefacts that appeared at numerous intervals throughout the film. Even so, I think it’s evident from the screen capture below that this less than ideal release of Predator still offers significant advantages over the DVD release, with superior grain resolution, detail and colour rendition. However, many people were unhappy with this version and clamoured for a remastered release using a modern codec. It appears that Fox was listening, as they are soon to release a ‘digitally restored’ version of the film…
Here we have a screen capture from that new release of the film. I had hoped that Fox would simply take the opportunity to perform some moderate dirt and scratch removal and encode the film with a modern codec like AVC to avoid the bothersome compression issues, but unfortunately it was not to be. They instead went to town on Predator with various digital manipulations designed to ‘improve’ the look of the film, the results of which speak volumes.
This image highlights the problems associated with over-processing a title to make it look more like a modern production in order to appease ‘grain haters’. As previously stated, Predator has historically been a very grainy feature film, but in trying to bring it in line with the quality expected by viewers used to watching glossy high-definition TV and modern blockbusters the disc’s producers have gone too far. You’ll notice how virtually all of the grain has been scrubbed away, leaving the image looking more akin to something shot on video than celluloid. Unfortunately when it comes to film, grain is detail, so when you remove it you also remove elements of the picture that were supposed to be there. Just look at Arnie’s face—he looks like a waxwork! Film is not reality and grain—be it heavy or light—is one of the things that defines the look of a film. The only features that shouldn’t have any grain are those where the filmmakers intend its absence, such as those shot on digital video. Even then many directors chose to add a layer of digital grain to their films for atmospheric purposes ( 300 is a good example of this).
Of course there are some people who prefer this over-sanitised look, but most film enthusiasts would prefer that their Blu-ray releases represent the filmmakers’ original intentions, at least as much as possible. Such overzealous application of DNR is detrimental to the film and is unfortunately becoming more commonplace as the Blu-ray format matures. If you glance up the page to The Wizard of Oz you’ll see that it is entirely possible to restore older films to ‘as-new’ condition without compromising their integrity. However, it is not an inexpensive process, which leads many companies to take the cheaper option of digitally manipulating an older master to create a ‘new’ transfer. It’s unfortunate, and I wish that said companies would simply present a film-like image on their catalogue releases rather than scrubbing them to the point of distraction. The vast majority of HDTVs have viewing modes that will reduce or even eliminate grain, so why not leave it as-is and let the consumer choose whether or not to remove it?
Thankfully images like the one above are the exception rather than the rule (at least for now), and the vast majority of Blu-ray titles look fantastic. So please, the next time one of your favourite catalogue films is released on Blu-ray don’t dismiss it because it wasn’t filmed in ‘HD’. As I hope to have demonstrated here, it is entirely possible to provide beautiful, film-like presentations of features shot twenty, forty, or even seventy years ago. Just be sure to keep an eye on review sites like ours to be sure that what you’re buying is worthy of your hard-earned money!
Editorial by Chris Gould
Advertisements
He approves the masters, not the transfers. There's a whole thread where Van Ling discusses it in one of the insider forums somewhere.
Blu Ray will always be superior. Just take close encounters of the third kind or poltergeist for instance they look amazing on blu ray while on DVD much is left to be desired
Chris Gould wrote: Not sure how you can have clarity without detail either.
By that "clarity" I mean a clean picture with no grain whatsoever. Many people here (in my neighbourhood) define "clarity" by that, they think that grain is worst than DNR. Maybe because I lack the English word to describe it other than "clear" (does "intelligible" define it more accurately?). About Gladiator, yes the pic is improved by the blu (It must/should/has to be) but I expect more from a new film in 2000 (The Godfather, Blade Runner, Bond Movies, Batman and Batman Returns look a lot better in Blu, so why can't Gladiator?), that's why it doesn't worth the extra money.
About the DC-WB animation, although recently they use CG, it still so very simple to my liking (the dogfight in Green Lantern FF for example). Even Spongebob has a more complex picture than DC-WB features. So far, my favourite American animation series for artwork is Avatar (although some of the artwork was created by Korean guys), that , I think, is a series that worth the Blu treatment. Maybe it only a matter of taste but since my childhood I've been more encountered by anime series (which most of them are very detailed in artwork) so my standard for animation series is pretty high and DC-WB doesn't live up to it (doesn't mean that I don't like their works in overall value). If not for some extras in Blu I'd bought DC-WB features in DVD.
There, I've explained that and once again it's purely my opinion.
By that "clarity" I mean a clean picture with no grain whatsoever. Many people here (in my neighbourhood) define "clarity" by that, they think that grain is worst than DNR. Maybe because I lack the English word to describe it other than "clear" (does "intelligible" define it more accurately?). About Gladiator, yes the pic is improved by the blu (It must/should/has to be) but I expect more from a new film in 2000 (The Godfather, Blade Runner, Bond Movies, Batman and Batman Returns look a lot better in Blu, so why can't Gladiator?), that's why it doesn't worth the extra money.
About the DC-WB animation, although recently they use CG, it still so very simple to my liking (the dogfight in Green Lantern FF for example). Even Spongebob has a more complex picture than DC-WB features. So far, my favourite American animation series for artwork is Avatar (although some of the artwork was created by Korean guys), that , I think, is a series that worth the Blu treatment. Maybe it only a matter of taste but since my childhood I've been more encountered by anime series (which most of them are very detailed in artwork) so my standard for animation series is pretty high and DC-WB doesn't live up to it (doesn't mean that I don't like their works in overall value). If not for some extras in Blu I'd bought DC-WB features in DVD.
There, I've explained that and once again it's purely my opinion.
Ah yes. I just looked her up on Spotlight. I know her agent. She's with a very good agency. If you want to see some very attractive actresses, go over to the PFD website and have a look through their clients.
My friend did an episode of the I.T. Crowd recently. Moss is in court for some reason. I think he is giving evidence because someone touched him on the bum. He said they were all very nice, but Richard Ayoade was straight in and straight out, so he didn't get a chance much to talk to him. I would love to meet him. I loved his work on Garth Merenghi.
Sorry Chris, I veered off topic.
There was one thing that occurred to me when re-reading your article... I bought Star Trek on HD-DVD and was disappointed with the picture. I could see pixelation (not grain), so some sort of compression must have been used on the those smaller capacity HD-DVDs and a different codec. Now that BDs are dual layer and can hold 50gb, I wonder how much difference the codec makes to the picture quality and whether or not it would be worth re-releasing some of the first BDs but using a different codec to put them onto disc?
I should have added that it looks much better on Blu-ray to me. Could that be the codec and the extra space?
My friend did an episode of the I.T. Crowd recently. Moss is in court for some reason. I think he is giving evidence because someone touched him on the bum. He said they were all very nice, but Richard Ayoade was straight in and straight out, so he didn't get a chance much to talk to him. I would love to meet him. I loved his work on Garth Merenghi.
Sorry Chris, I veered off topic.
There was one thing that occurred to me when re-reading your article... I bought Star Trek on HD-DVD and was disappointed with the picture. I could see pixelation (not grain), so some sort of compression must have been used on the those smaller capacity HD-DVDs and a different codec. Now that BDs are dual layer and can hold 50gb, I wonder how much difference the codec makes to the picture quality and whether or not it would be worth re-releasing some of the first BDs but using a different codec to put them onto disc?
I should have added that it looks much better on Blu-ray to me. Could that be the codec and the extra space?
As far as I know there's nothing wrong with either AVC or VC1. It's how they're used that matters.
I'm also waiting for THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME to come out on Blu-Ray.
Which Hunchback version would that be? The Disney one or the silent-black-and-white one? Either way, it's not gonna come up soon.
Sod grain. A good bowel movement is all grain is good for.
Only joking. Couldn't resist.
Heavily DNR'd BD's are like Cravendale milk. (Stay with me)
In a simple taste test it does indeed taste cleaner than regular pasturised milk but down in your cholesterol encrusted heart, you know it doesn't taste like milk should.
I digress. Cravendale was on offer yesterday at the supermarket. (no, I'm not from the milk marketing board).
Try it though. It's the new Predator BD in milk form.
Nicely done article Chris.
Only joking. Couldn't resist.
Heavily DNR'd BD's are like Cravendale milk. (Stay with me)
In a simple taste test it does indeed taste cleaner than regular pasturised milk but down in your cholesterol encrusted heart, you know it doesn't taste like milk should.
I digress. Cravendale was on offer yesterday at the supermarket. (no, I'm not from the milk marketing board).
Try it though. It's the new Predator BD in milk form.
Nicely done article Chris.
I finally got my hands on The Wild Bunch. This is how DNR should be used - in moderation. The lack of grain doesn't look exactly right, but nothing has been platicized.
I hope Paramount release Fire In The Sky on a good blu and Planes, Trains & Automobiles, an 80`s flick that will have grain, a nostalgic look.
Ah... Trains, Planes... the late John Candy's finest peformance IMHO.
Harry Crumb surely?
Haven't seen it. He's terrific in JFK but of all the ones I've seen, I thought Trains was his personal best.
A nightmare on Elm Street is another one that really looks great on bluray compared to dvd-editions. To bad Craven alays talks about the movie being cencored but never realeses his own DC of it.
Chris Gould wrote: One imagines he'll be involved. He has enough clout to dictate how his films look, hence the long delay for The Terminator and True Lies on BD (he has to approve them).
True Lies was passed for BD by the BBFC in the UK a long time ago. Uncut too - yeah!
True Lies was passed for BD by the BBFC in the UK a long time ago. Uncut too - yeah!
toonloon wrote: Haven't seen it. He's terrific in JFK but of all the ones I've seen, I thought Trains was his personal best.
I loved him in The Great Outdoors, thought the combination of him and Aykroyd was fantastic, and they worked very well together.
I loved him in The Great Outdoors, thought the combination of him and Aykroyd was fantastic, and they worked very well together.
I was all on board with this article until the Predator segment. The argument that "grain is detail" is one of the recurring myths I'd hoped the author would strike down as well. Even if one is to assume grain is indeed detail, how exactly would that benefit the image, since the grain is by its very nature constantly shifting?
Clearly "film is not reality", but why shouldn't the image look as clear as our own eyes would interpret it - assuming we were right there with the characters in the film. Blu-Ray finally offers the chance to do just that, but those who've watched grainy films their entire lives have convinced themselves that it's inexplicably supposed to be that way. Just because the technical limitations of the era made the grain mandatory doesn't mean that it's an inexorable aspect of the films themselves.
The Ultimate Hunter Edition of Predator is what fans have been eager to get their hands on for years. Personally I don't care what the director's intentions were, when I buy a Blu-Ray it's because I want the sharpest, cleanest picture possible. The UHE delivers precisely that.
Clearly "film is not reality", but why shouldn't the image look as clear as our own eyes would interpret it - assuming we were right there with the characters in the film. Blu-Ray finally offers the chance to do just that, but those who've watched grainy films their entire lives have convinced themselves that it's inexplicably supposed to be that way. Just because the technical limitations of the era made the grain mandatory doesn't mean that it's an inexorable aspect of the films themselves.
The Ultimate Hunter Edition of Predator is what fans have been eager to get their hands on for years. Personally I don't care what the director's intentions were, when I buy a Blu-Ray it's because I want the sharpest, cleanest picture possible. The UHE delivers precisely that.
Finklestein wrote: I was all on board with this article until the Predator segment. The argument that "grain is detail" is one of the recurring myths I'd hoped the author would strike down as well.
Would you mind explaining how it is a 'myth'?
Quote: Even if one is to assume grain is indeed detail, how exactly would that benefit the image, since the grain is by its very nature constantly shifting?
Grain is not a benefit, it *is* the image. If you remove grain you are removing part of the image. Are you saying you disagree with that?
Quote: Clearly "film is not reality", but why shouldn't the image look as clear as our own eyes would interpret it - assuming we were right there with the characters in the film.
Because that's not how directors choose to shoot their films. If they did everything would be shot in super-clean digital. Your also ignoring the fact that this article is about old films on Blu-ray, which were shot on film, and film contains grain. Altering them is altering the original look of the films. If you prefer clean looking films with no grain that is your prerogative, but there are plenty of them out there to cater for your needs (mostly animated admittedly).
Quote: Blu-Ray finally offers the chance to do just that, but those who've watched grainy films their entire lives have convinced themselves that it's inexplicably supposed to be that way. Just because the technical limitations of the era made the grain mandatory doesn't mean that it's an inexorable aspect of the films themselves.
Of what era? 30s? 50s? 70s? 90s? This year? Are you telling me that films are still shot on celluloid or have grain digitally added because of technological limitations? You seem to be focussing on the word 'grainy' without realising that film grain is what allows you to see the image. If you already know this you're being deliberately obtuse. The point of the Blu-ray format is to allow films to appear closer to their original look in the home than was possible with DVD. If films have grain, let it remain. If they don't, I'm not advocating that it is added to something like Toy Story. My stance is that films should be presented as close to their original intended look as possible, whether that's a swarming mass of grain or a super-clean image.
Quote: The Ultimate Hunter Edition of Predator is what fans have been eager to get their hands on for years. Personally I don't care what the director's intentions were, when I buy a Blu-Ray it's because I want the sharpest, cleanest picture possible. The UHE delivers precisely that.
You know quite often people who appreciate film grain are called arrogant for 'forcing' their opinions on others, yet this is exactly what the 'anti-grain' brigade do all the time. It's also arrogant to presume that I am not a 'fan' of Predator because I do not like the new version. I *am* a fan, and it is *not* what *I* wanted, so your assumption is incorrect. As it happens the old release of Predator actually looks pretty good in motion, for the very reasons you state above. The grain is in motion, not static, and there are only a couple of scenes where is is very heavy (and there were reasons for that). There was room for improvement, but that required Fox to go back to the original negative and do a proper job.
It's also amazingly arrogant to dismiss the intentions of the person who created the film in the first place. Maybe you should petition Steven Spielberg to release a 'grain free' version of Saving Private Ryan, or better yet, a colour version of Schindler's List...
What many fail to realise with this new version of Predator is that you are not seeing any more detail than the old release. It is not 'sharper' as you put it. It came from the same master as the last release, so it can't possibly contain more detail. In fact, as has been proven it has less detail in a number of shots. You've simply been fooled by digital trickery. You go ahead and ignore the reviews if you want, but if it was such a great effort it wouldn't have been criticised by pretty much every major DVD/Blu-ray review site. You may also remember the poor transfer that Universal cranked out for Gladiator, with excessive DNR, edge enhancement, etc. You may also have seen the new transfer approved by Ridley Scott, which blows the old one away. It has more grain *and* more detail. Is Ridley Scott wrong? Would the studio release a new version of the film barely months later if there was no demand for film to look like, well, film?
There's also another option that people overlook, and it's that of external processing. The majority of TVs/BD players have some form of DNR facility built in. If you like all of your films to look the same why not try using those controls instead of advocating the retrospective alteration of the look of a film? That way people like me get to watch films with the grain intact and people like you can smear it out of existence with the push of a button.
Would you mind explaining how it is a 'myth'?
Quote: Even if one is to assume grain is indeed detail, how exactly would that benefit the image, since the grain is by its very nature constantly shifting?
Grain is not a benefit, it *is* the image. If you remove grain you are removing part of the image. Are you saying you disagree with that?
Quote: Clearly "film is not reality", but why shouldn't the image look as clear as our own eyes would interpret it - assuming we were right there with the characters in the film.
Because that's not how directors choose to shoot their films. If they did everything would be shot in super-clean digital. Your also ignoring the fact that this article is about old films on Blu-ray, which were shot on film, and film contains grain. Altering them is altering the original look of the films. If you prefer clean looking films with no grain that is your prerogative, but there are plenty of them out there to cater for your needs (mostly animated admittedly).
Quote: Blu-Ray finally offers the chance to do just that, but those who've watched grainy films their entire lives have convinced themselves that it's inexplicably supposed to be that way. Just because the technical limitations of the era made the grain mandatory doesn't mean that it's an inexorable aspect of the films themselves.
Of what era? 30s? 50s? 70s? 90s? This year? Are you telling me that films are still shot on celluloid or have grain digitally added because of technological limitations? You seem to be focussing on the word 'grainy' without realising that film grain is what allows you to see the image. If you already know this you're being deliberately obtuse. The point of the Blu-ray format is to allow films to appear closer to their original look in the home than was possible with DVD. If films have grain, let it remain. If they don't, I'm not advocating that it is added to something like Toy Story. My stance is that films should be presented as close to their original intended look as possible, whether that's a swarming mass of grain or a super-clean image.
Quote: The Ultimate Hunter Edition of Predator is what fans have been eager to get their hands on for years. Personally I don't care what the director's intentions were, when I buy a Blu-Ray it's because I want the sharpest, cleanest picture possible. The UHE delivers precisely that.
You know quite often people who appreciate film grain are called arrogant for 'forcing' their opinions on others, yet this is exactly what the 'anti-grain' brigade do all the time. It's also arrogant to presume that I am not a 'fan' of Predator because I do not like the new version. I *am* a fan, and it is *not* what *I* wanted, so your assumption is incorrect. As it happens the old release of Predator actually looks pretty good in motion, for the very reasons you state above. The grain is in motion, not static, and there are only a couple of scenes where is is very heavy (and there were reasons for that). There was room for improvement, but that required Fox to go back to the original negative and do a proper job.
It's also amazingly arrogant to dismiss the intentions of the person who created the film in the first place. Maybe you should petition Steven Spielberg to release a 'grain free' version of Saving Private Ryan, or better yet, a colour version of Schindler's List...
What many fail to realise with this new version of Predator is that you are not seeing any more detail than the old release. It is not 'sharper' as you put it. It came from the same master as the last release, so it can't possibly contain more detail. In fact, as has been proven it has less detail in a number of shots. You've simply been fooled by digital trickery. You go ahead and ignore the reviews if you want, but if it was such a great effort it wouldn't have been criticised by pretty much every major DVD/Blu-ray review site. You may also remember the poor transfer that Universal cranked out for Gladiator, with excessive DNR, edge enhancement, etc. You may also have seen the new transfer approved by Ridley Scott, which blows the old one away. It has more grain *and* more detail. Is Ridley Scott wrong? Would the studio release a new version of the film barely months later if there was no demand for film to look like, well, film?
There's also another option that people overlook, and it's that of external processing. The majority of TVs/BD players have some form of DNR facility built in. If you like all of your films to look the same why not try using those controls instead of advocating the retrospective alteration of the look of a film? That way people like me get to watch films with the grain intact and people like you can smear it out of existence with the push of a button.
Unfortunately, 2 of the best examples you could have used were skipped, South Pacific and How the West Was Won. These are 2 prime examples of how a Blu-ray can outshine the DVD by miles. These 2 transfers show just how well a movie can look and sound on the format. They were transferrred with love and affection and this is what Blu-ray is all about. I am very excited for The Sound of Music!
I can only use discs that I own, and I don't own either of those.
One thing I do notice is that many examples given for Blu-ray's superiority are comparing older dvd releases!?! Instead of comparing dvd/Blu-ray released on the same day/year. You can't call attention to something's superiority when it is a completely different cleaned up/restored version! From my understanding even the Wizard of Oz (2010) dvd is just a port from the 2005 dvd instead of using the same transfer as the Blu-ray disc! I actually have Blade Runner The Final Cut on dvd and it isn't that far off from the pic you posted of the Blu-ray version. Why? Because the dvd is merely a 480 representation of the Blu-ray HD 1080 transfer so the difference in picture isn't all that stunning as it is when comparing it to a previous dvd release! Any article like this is completely pointless unless both discs are from the same transfer, the only difference being standard resolution compared to HD's! Which unfortunately is not the case with any of these examples.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. I realise the last post was some time ago, but I think it needs to be addressed.
Here is Blade Runner on DVD and HD DVD (which is the same encode as the current BD):
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php...
If you don't think that's a worthwhile upgrade then BD isn't for you. Blade Runner isn't even one of the best examples on the format because the HD versions received low bitrate encodes from Warner.
I think you've slightly missed the point of the article as well (which was to dispel the myth that films over a certain age don't benefit from HD transfers), but I'm in a tolerant mood today so here are a few modern comparisons:
Planet Terror:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_com...
Curse of the Golden Flower:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_com...
Rocky Balboa:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php...
Elite Squad:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php...
I don't have time to search the whole of that site (and they mainly compare older releases), but if you scan through AVSForum there are many more examples of modern DVDs that pale in comparison to the BDs. Avatar is one, as are the Transformers films. The original Star Wars trilogy is another good example, because they come from the same masters as the 2004 DVDs so a direct comparison is possible.
Instead of labelling the article pointless, perhaps you should have taken the time to understand its intentions.
Here is Blade Runner on DVD and HD DVD (which is the same encode as the current BD):
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php...
If you don't think that's a worthwhile upgrade then BD isn't for you. Blade Runner isn't even one of the best examples on the format because the HD versions received low bitrate encodes from Warner.
I think you've slightly missed the point of the article as well (which was to dispel the myth that films over a certain age don't benefit from HD transfers), but I'm in a tolerant mood today so here are a few modern comparisons:
Planet Terror:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_com...
Curse of the Golden Flower:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_com...
Rocky Balboa:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php...
Elite Squad:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php...
I don't have time to search the whole of that site (and they mainly compare older releases), but if you scan through AVSForum there are many more examples of modern DVDs that pale in comparison to the BDs. Avatar is one, as are the Transformers films. The original Star Wars trilogy is another good example, because they come from the same masters as the 2004 DVDs so a direct comparison is possible.
Instead of labelling the article pointless, perhaps you should have taken the time to understand its intentions.
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Horrific Reviews
Unborn But Forgotten
UK - DVD R2
Three Faces of Terror
IT - DVD R2
Cube2: HyperCube
UK - DVD R2
Dawn of the Dead
UK - BD
I Spit On Your Grave
UK - BD RB
Hot News
Disney Animation Blu-rays
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Prince of Darkness
US - BD RA
ABC TV
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
The Lovely Bones
US - DVD R1 | BD
Criterion August Releases
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Latest News
Disney Animation Blu-rays
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Prince of Darkness
US - BD RA
ABC TV
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Universal Steelbooks
US - BD RA
Criterion August Releases
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Most Talked About
More Scream Factory News
US - BD RA
Texas Chainsaw (2013, 2D)
US - BD RA
Spring Breakers
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Host, The
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Universal Steelbooks
US - BD RA
Surely he didn't approve the messing with the Terminator 2 SE BD or the original BD for that matter too.