Topic: The quality of 'classic films' on Blu-ray

[Blair]

What are your thoughts on the quality/effort put into releasing classic films on Blu-ray? Which releases have done a good job at creating a significantly noticeable improvement over their VHS counterparts and which look as if they used a VHS tape as the copy? Which, after restoration, capture the quality not seen since the original theatrical release?

I don't own a Blu-ray player, but with the release of Ben Hur, the subject revived for me how many classics aren't "restored" to the quality I would have expected, in part because I am comparing 1920s-40s cinematography to present day.

I'm not speaking of the need for better special effects or the removal of a boom that slipped into frame, but instead that the 1940s Western originally looks like it was shot using my 1990s home video camera. So later when I see it on high def awaiting the increased quality, instead it just looks like it was still shot with my 1990s home video camera, but with better contrast, generally insignificant in the scheme of things.

On the other hand, the Blu-ray quality of The Wizard of Oz over my VHS copy....

[hal9g]

They did an excellent job with The African Queen.

[Najemikon]

I've said for a while now that I actually think Blu-Ray is more important for older films than it is for new ones, because the hi-def does more for photography than it does for special effects. Stand-outs have been It's A Wonderful Life, Zulu, M, The Searchers and more...

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Watched today and saw an excellent restoration on: How the West Was Won
The Bonus-Blu even has a "SmileBox"-transfer to imitate the original surround screen. This is something you have to get used to on a flat screen but it's definitely a viewing experience.

Regarding the need to go Blu: If your current DVD-player has a decent 1080p upscaling combined with HDMI-out, the difference in quality is quite limited. BluRays have a better picture, but for me it mostly boils down to: Which release has the better price relation

[Blair]

This isn't meant to convince me in any way. I still watch VHS tapes without any complaints about "quality." DVD is has much better quality, but that doesn't make VHS not worth watching anymore, imo. I record everything on my crappy SD cable signal and 20 year old television using VHS tapes and am just fine with that, so quality has never been the big issue. I buy DVDs for the special features, easier portability, and easier ability to play anywhere using a laptop. . . in that order.

I am just curious about these types of films and thought it would make a good discussion.

[Antares]

I record everything on my crappy SD cable signal and 20 year old television using VHS tapes and am just fine with that, so quality has never been the big issue.

I'm glad to see there are still holdouts out there. As long as I can watch a film I don't care what media it's on. Sure, I prefer digital, but I now watch a lot of stuff on YouTube because it's the only place to find certain films. And no one will consider YouTube state of the art. We have become ciphers in the world of technological advancement, here's a good example. When I met my wife back in 1990, she owned a small 19" portable TV. She had been watching this set for close to 5 years at the time. When HD sets became available, I held off, waiting for the prices to come down to a more realistic offering. When I finally made the plunge and bought my 56" DLP, she was leery about the size of the TV and what all the High-Definition hoo-ha was all about. Four years later and now, she's an HD snob! She gets upset when something is not broadcast in HD.

[Najemikon]

There's a middle point for me. All home video formats are a reproduction and reproducing reduces the quality. You might say it doesn't matter, and you're probably right, but if the tech is offered, I want it as close to the original as possible for the simple reason that within definition lies the artists choice, especially when it comes to depth, lighting and colour. Blu-Ray is a digital enhancement in some respects, but it's the closest convenience we'll ever have to a projector and running our own print. VHS was always awful especially in colour. Again, doesn't matter, but now we don't have to settle for it.

Think of it this way: you take a few photographs with a camera. Maybe they're holiday snaps, maybe their wedding pictures. Whatever, you take them to be developed and printed. A day later you collect them and the guy says, "I printed them on normal copier paper, but it was the wrong shape, so the pictures are slightly squashed. Oh and my printer isn't great, so the colours are a bit washed out. But you can still tell who's who, eh? That'll be £15, please."

No-one would put up with that and while the analogy isn't perfect because VHS had no alternative, now there is, I don't feel any need to say, "you know what, tape will do". 

That said, I've always worked in IT and can remember HPs marketing that insisted even an awesome 1 mega pixel camera would replace film. Absolute bollocks and I upset my boss a couple of times because I refused to stand by the blurb. I've always enjoyed photography and no way was I going to help purport the myth that film was dead. I didn't get a digital SLR until they hit 8mp a few years back. Even now, it's not great with night photography. But a lot of people were blinded by the advertising, but luckily this was no CD taking over vinyl.

The only exception is when something is too digital. I prefer the warmth of real film though the line is getting more blurred. Again, some film-makers went digital too fast and even now, some big budget affairs are just too bloody shiny!

[Antares]

I prefer the warmth of real film though the line is getting more blurred.

It's how I feel about CDs vs vinyl. Sure they're compact and there's no click or pops, but the sound is definitely not the same as vinyl. The lower wavelengths especially. You just don't get the same bass punch with digital. I miss the days of 12" LPs.

[Najemikon]

I prefer the warmth of real film though the line is getting more blurred.

It's how I feel about CDs vs vinyl. Sure they're compact and there's no click or pops, but the sound is definitely not the same as vinyl. The lower wavelengths especially. You just don't get the same bass punch with digital. I miss the days of 12" LPs.

Same here. It's simply a question of science and the specs of a CD are significantly less than vinyl. They simply aren't capable. If you can find true DVD audio releases, they are possibly better than vinyl. And 320k MP3s are worth downloading, so long as they were mastered as such. I have a DVD-A of Queen's A Night At The Opera and when I finally had a player that could handle it (DVD players by standard can't), the depth was there to be had. Bohemian Rhapsody was breathtakingly fresh!

[Blair]

That makes three of us about vinyl over CDs. I use MP3s for the sake of convenience, but I grew up to the sound of vinyl, still going back to it from time to time for the 50s-80s music because the sound is so much more... pure, I guess.

Everyone has their preferences. None of them are wrong; that's the whole point of "choice," though there is nothing wrong with discussion to try and sway someone's view. It's a shame to me, though, that it's always swaying toward "the future" and less and less respecting what was before. For instance, how many people still own a non-electronic typewriter? *raises hand*

[Dragonfire]

North by Northwest was done really well on Blu-ray.  I've thought the quality of the Roger Corman movies I've gotten on Blu has been really good.  Forbidden Planet is done well too.

[Rogmeister]

Speaking of vinyl, here's a bit of a funny story.  My cat Shadow (who has since passed away) was in the bedroom when I was playing a vinyl album.  I noticed he was sitting up, staring intently at the album spin round and round.  I turned around to get something, not thinking anything of it.  The next thing I knew, Shadow had leapt up and landed ON the album and was then spinning himself at 33 1/3 RPM.  Luckily, both cat and record escaped with no damage. 

[Achim]

I can only agree with the others. I have seen many classic films on Blu-ray which look better than a film made only a few years back. It seems more care is taken for those old films, it certainly doesn't seem like they just slap them on the discs. North by Northwest is a great example, as are African Queen and How The West Was Won. Following review Casablanca is another. So, as Jon said, Blu-ray seems even better for old fims...