Often times, there's more to it than just having an HD master to releasing a blu-ray.  There's rights, for one thing.  The Criterion Collection for example, has been mastering in HD for quite some time, yet the vast majority of those films have not yet been released on blu-ray, partly because they can only release so many films at a time, but mostly because they have to renegotiate the license agreement, because a high definition release is a new beast, a different revenue stream, and the holders of the copyright will want extra for that priviledge.  I believe this was why the Von Sternberg silents did not get a corresponding blu-ray release...CC did not, or was not able to get the HD/Blu-ray license from the rights holders. 

It could also be that the means by which the HD master was made is no longer suitable.  10 years ago, the technology wasn't really in place for, say, transfers from original 65mm/70mm elements, so films like Patton were mastered from 35mm reduction prints.  Other films were mastered only in 1080p or 2K, which really doesn't resolve 35mm...you need 4K for that, and 6-8K for large format. 

Then there's color correction and redoing any restoration effects.  I believe when CC revisited Seven Samurai for their new HD master, they had to redo all their image restoration work. 

And then, sadly, there is the profit motive.  No doubt about it, the home video market has taken a beating.  the DVD market has collapsed, streaming and VOD has taken a bite out of the market, and studios got burned on DVD releases, and even the blu-rays of their crown jewels have underperformed (The Wizard of OZ and Gone with the Wind blus were reportedly financial disappointments).  Some are just plain skittish about investing the money to do proper transfers/restorations/remasters of titles and releasing them on blu-ray.  It's why Criterion has been making inroads with the studios of late, and releasing more top shelf titles like "Paths of Glory" and "Kiss Me Deadly," because now, there isn't as much of a profit motive for the owners, and they'd rather just outsource it to a boutique label like CC, and pocket cold hard cash from the license agreement and royalties.

Re funny Girl !

Streisand paid for the restauration of Funny Girl herself -  and as far as I know is also the owner of the film so it should be possible to release  the problem here I think is DISTRIBUTION  and the cost of pressing the disc 

SONY has a number of catalog films ready to go on Blu-ray : But they are not releasing them because they don't think they will sell.

Among them "From Here to Enternity" "Oliver!" "Bye Bye Birdie"

"Guns of Navarone" is finally coming - but so is "the Caine Mutiny" - a prime example of the kind of film that won't sell large numbers on Blu-ray (one reason because it's Black and White")

Of course "In Cold Blood' would have been a big seller and "Jason and the Argonaunts" would also break the bank - so SONY's planning department seems to be made up of friends and relatives of Studio executives who's only qualitifcation for employment is being a relation

of course "Lawrence of Arabia" is being held until 2012's 50th anniversary

FUNNY GIRL was not filmed in 70mm. It is a blowup to 70mm.

The Caine Mutiny was shot in 3-strip Technicolor.

Thanks Patrick. I 've never seen this film and always thought it was in Black and White for some reason. I'll have to check it out at some point.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick McCart 

The Caine Mutiny was shot in 3-strip Technicolor.

Almost everything on MGM HD is new or better than the dvd' Like Woody Allen Films,or stuff like King of Hearts

BADLANDS has been in HD for Cable TV Channels like HD Net and TCM yet no Blue Ray,Picnic at Hanging Rock

has a nice HD transfer which was shown on TCM HD yet no BR Here,Sounder,Support Your Local Sheriff and many

more all with No BR Release in site 

I've seen a lot of great (and even so-so) films on MGM HD, and I'm glad to have that channel.  However, not all of their transfers look that wonderful.  Sure, they are better than an SD version, but many of the prints they used as masters have a lot of dirt and scratches.  That would be one additional factor - they'd probably want to do newer masters and clean them up before releasing them on BD.

Doug

Also, a lot of the HD transfers you might see on HDNet or similar channels might have been done before Blu-ray and before 1080p was a home standard -- there's a pretty decent chance that at least some of the HD transfers you see on television or through streaming were done at 1080i ten years ago, which would have been great for doing a kick-ass DVD, but not suitable for the best Blu-ray experience.  Those will all have to be redone.

I think the biggest issue with classic titles is finding something current to tie them into.  Even "The Ten Commandments", a movie which really doesn't need a sales pitch, was released around Easter because that's typically when the film pops into people's heads.  "It's A Wonderful Life" on Blu-ray came out, as I recall, near the holiday season.  Those are two of the big sellers that really don't need an extra bit of promotion, but they wait anyway.  With traditional video stores basically gone, and with the big box retailers only stocking a very limited selection of classic titles, I understand why studios feel the need to wait for some kind of occasion that might be added incentive for a retail outlet to give it a decent shelf presence and promotional push.  In a perfect world, every title that had a master suitable for Blu-ray would be available at least on that studio's website, with the big commercial push to come at whatever the best moment would be, but that's not gonna happen.  But at least we have things like TCM or Netflix streaming so we can see some of these new masters before the release comes.  (I was very happy to have seen the HD master for Kubrick's Lolita on TCM late last year I think, and that Blu-ray's not out yet.)  It's not a perfect situation, and being patient isn't exactly one of my strong suits to begin with, but I think that's really the cause of a lot of the delays - wanting to find the best occasion they can to get a release out when they have the best chance of selling the largest number of copies.

I know there is an HD Master of "An American President" (1995; pretty much this was the dry run of sorts for Sorkin which led to West Wing..)   I can say that because it's been seen in HD broadcast, Amazon has it in HD streaming.. the DVD is a DISASTER.  It is 4:3 only, non-anamorphic, badly overcompressed on a single layer disc.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattCR 

I know there is an HD Master of "An American President" (1995; pretty much this was the dry run of sorts for Sorkin which led to West Wing..)   I can say that because it's been seen in HD broadcast, Amazon has it in HD streaming.. the DVD is a DISASTER.  It is 4:3 only, non-anamorphic, badly overcompressed on a single layer disc.  

I agree the DVD is a disaster; that's one of the handful of DVDs I have in my collection that I haven't actually watched, which is a shame because I love the movie.  Even though it's not the effects heavy kind of blockbuster that screams out "Blu-ray upgrade!", I'd buy a Blu-ray of that movie in a heartbeat when it's made available.  I bet whatever comes out probably won't have any bonus features, but if they felt so inclined as to spend the money, it would be great to get a look back with the cast and crew, maybe a feature about how it led to the West Wing - with both American President and West Wing distributed by Warner, that actually doesn't seem too farfetched.  (And hey, if they'd like to do a West Wing BD set down the line...I'd get that too.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg 

I agree the DVD is a disaster; that's one of the handful of DVDs I have in my collection that I haven't actually watched, which is a shame because I love the movie.  Even though it's not the effects heavy kind of blockbuster that screams out "Blu-ray upgrade!", I'd buy a Blu-ray of that movie in a heartbeat when it's made available.  I bet whatever comes out probably won't have any bonus features, but if they felt so inclined as to spend the money, it would be great to get a look back with the cast and crew, maybe a feature about how it led to the West Wing - with both American President and West Wing distributed by Warner, that actually doesn't seem too farfetched.  (And hey, if they'd like to do a West Wing BD set down the line...I'd get that too.)

I agree completely. After reading the reviews, I didn't even buy the DVD. I still only have the film on laserdisc.
 

VUDU has a ton of movies mastered in HD that haven't made their way to Blu Ray yet.  I was surprised to see a vast amount of Hitchcock and a lot of other old stuff I've been waiting for.

Haven't movies been mastered in HD since almost the beginning of DVD though?  I remember seeing on even some of the earliest packaging that the film was 'mastered in high definition', even though it wasn't presented that way (obviously) on the DVD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by benbess 

Sorry to be ignorant, but what is VUDU? And can you name some specific Hitchcock titles you've seen that aren't on blu? Thanks.

Video rental service.  It's available on PS3, many bluray players, PC.. it's interesting but I've never really went in for it.  It's fairly high quality though.

Mastered in high definition could mean mastered in 1080i, This is what happened to Singin' in the Rain which is why Warners had to go back to the drawing board with a new transfer for a 1080p Blu-ray release. Supposedly we are getting that movie in 2012 (an anniversary year for the movie).

Quote:

Originally Posted by benbess 

Sorry for the silly question, but is there really a clearly visible difference between 1080i and 1080p? Say on a 42" Sony Bravia (what I've got)?

It depends on how clearly you see things - I know that's kind of a vague answer, but some people say they notice the difference, others don't.  It depends on the quality of the encoding, as well as the quality of the player you're using, the electronics within your TV, etc.  The further away you sit from the screen, the less noticeable many of these things become anyway.  If your TV or player is bad at handling interlace artifacts, or if those are the things you notice (what might appear as lines or jagged edges or shimmering, among others), you'll notice it more than some.  That's one of those questions where if you asked ten different people on this forum with similar size TVs, you'll probably get ten different answers.

More importantly, when a studio like Warner says they want to do a new master for Singin' In The Rain, it means they want to use what's state of the art today -- not state of the art ten years ago -- to give us the best quality possible by today's standards.  Putting in that kind of effort is almost always a good thing.

What may be more noticeable to more people isn't so much the difference between 1080i/1080p but the fact that an older 1080i transfer wouldn't have been done on the kind of state-of-the-art equipment used today.  Also, from what I've noticed over the years, a disc looks better when the source material is of a higher resolution than the actual disc -- in other words, a 1080i master makes for a better looking DVD than an older 480i master, and a 2k master will make a better Blu-ray than a 1080p master.  (The more resolution that's present before compression, the better job the compression equipment will do in accurately reproducing the quality of the original.)  I think it was on the Digital Bits where Bill Hunt visited Universal, and Universal has been notorious for having less-than-stellar Blu-rays of classic titles, and he learned there that they were making new masters -- but the masters were only 1080p, so that kinda backs up the theory that the more resolution you have going in, the better the overall quality is going to be, even if all of that resolution won't be present in the end.  Think about it this way -- if you're making an MP3, you're going to get a better quality MP3 converting directly from the CD than you would converting from a slightly-higher quality MP3.  My guess is that it would work somewhat similar on the picture end of things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by benbess 

Sorry for the silly question, but is there really a clearly visible difference between 1080i and 1080p? Say on a 42" Sony Bravia (what I've got)?

The differences can be subtle, especially if you have really good equipment. 1080i is more standard in cable presentations, where the signal uses less bandwidth. You have to be very observant to notice a difference, but there can be little slips with 1080i, particularly with patterns on-screen, like in a screen door or similar. However, even 1080p can look pretty bad on poor HDTVs unless the refresh rate is suitable (i.e.: 120 Hz or better). The refresh rate refers to an algorithm used by the display to "guess" where proper colors and movement will be in-between the 24 to 60 frames/second, resulting in a smoother picture. I have a 42" display as well (an LG LCD) and have noticed some problems with 1080i; it's not a big difference, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by benbess 

Scott: Thanks.

 

Another silly question: can 240 hz give a "video" look to a film?

 

Not a silly question at all. I've wondered the same thing myself. I've noticed a sort of "processed' appearance on a friend's 55", 240 Hz display. I'm not quite sure if that's the source material on a larger screen or the TV's processor trying to make the image as smooth as possible, or both. I've sampled several titles and they all seem to display this quality. It could just be my eyes, I don't know. By most accounts, the image is stunning, but I suppose no video is going to look exactly like film, regardless of how good the transfer may be and how efficient the display is at handling the signal. My 42" is a 120 Hz and that seems to be fine. No "video" look to it at all. As with many things, it may be in the eye of the beholder, but I do believe a 60 Hz may be inadequate for many >40" displays.

Then again, I could just be insanely jealous of the large display:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by benbess 

Another silly question: can 240 hz give a "video" look to a film?

 

It has nothing to do with the refresh rate per se - that is, it isn't the fact that the set refreshes at 120Hz or 240Hz that creates the "video" look. That's the result of frame interpolation. The set adds extra frames to the incoming material by guessing what and where they should be. 

The difference, however, is the multiplier.   240hz and 120hz are considered "good" because they are even multipliers (24fps/30fps/60fps) which will all evenly go into those numbers.  Wheras a set at say, 60hz means 24 doesn't divide evenly into it, which is part of the issue.. my experience is: maybe.  Some people never notice to begin with.  Some it drives batty.   Only your eyes will know