What's new

Classics on HD and BD (1 Viewer)

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
Regarding over-filtering of high-frequency detail due to improper (excessive) use of NR,

don't let the studios get away with it. COMPLAIN. We lived with EE on DVD. NR on HD media is something we should nip in the bud.


Disney has Sleeping Beauty on the way. That's a "classic"
 

Danny_N

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 2, 2001
Messages
314
Real Name
Danny
Added:

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Thanks Paul for mentioning it).
Superman The Movie
Superman II
 

Paul Arnette

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Messages
2,613
Danny, no problem. I'll just roll through my HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc collection to see if there are any more...

HD DVD:

If 1980 is the cut-off date, I see Caddyshack (1980) (WB) wasn't mentioned, and neither was National Lampoon's Animal House (1978) (Universal). Am I detecting a comedy bias here? :crazy:


Blu-ray Disc:

You forgot Rocky (1976) (MGM) :eek:

;)
 

Paul_Scott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
6,545
a few years ago I used to find 1980 was a good cut-off date- but now that I think about it, it seems that anything older than a quarter of a century might be labeled a 'classic'. I have a hard time envisioning mid 80s films being referred to in the same way as mid 70s movies, but there is a whole generation of new adults out there for whom these mid 80s films would classify as pre-historic.

I know Jim was being facetious, but it really isn't the same thing to label one format the PS3 format and the other the Xbox format. A game device is certainly not driving the latter format, while I haven't seen anyone dispute that is the case for the former...even if the attach rates suck.

re: Willy Wonka- I saw some jaggies on a few isolated objects like the credits, the rotoscoped Wonka sign in an early establishing shot, and at one or two other points that I forget. Otherwise I was impressed with the disc and happy to see it look as good as it did. The aliasing is regretable , but to me very minor, and an easy exchange for getting this particular title early and not having to wait years and years for it (which I expected to be the case). I'm very happy to have it.
 

Paul Arnette

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Messages
2,613

Honestly, I'd rather not tie a date to it at all, but I was just going with the flow for the purposes of the thread. To me the term 'classic' implies greatness. The problem is that is relative. Personally, I think it would be a lot more accurate, and funny, to call this thread "Old Movies on HD and BD". :) As an example, two other blind-buys I purchased and watched around the same time were Rio Bravo and The Cowboys. Now once I finished watching them, I would refer to Rio Bravo as a classic, and The Cowboys as an old movie, but, again, that's relative.

With repect to Willy Wonka, the jaggies didn't ruin the movie for me by any means, it was just disappointing to see them so clearly on a relatively small screen (50").
 

Jim_K

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2000
Messages
10,087
I think the term X-Box crowd is appropriate, based on the releases from both camps they (the studios) view us all (HDM adopters) part of the gamer demographic. Take Warner out of the equation and I see no difference in the types of releases from the HD DVD exclusive studios in the past 6 to 12 months to show the format is geared more (than BD) to film afficianado's and less to 16-20 year old gamers. I know this is a popular talking point for staunch HD DVD supporters but it's just not a fact.

I'm pretty sure the best selling title on HD DVD isn't 2001 or The Wild Bunch, it's probably at title with slick MTV-editing, a plot tailor made for those suffering from ADD and features giant robots blowing shit up reeeeeeaaal gooooooood. ;)

It would be great if that (or either) format were geared primarily towards film buffs and I'd be backing HD DVD more than I do if it were true but all I see from Universal and Paramount is mostly stuff aimed at the X-Box crowd*

* unless you consider titles like Timecop, Mobsters, Anchorman, Mr Beans Holiday and Old School timeless classics. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Anyhow enough gamer bashing. My personal cutoff for "classic" status is a bit more generous than some and always was a standard 20 years (1987).
 

ppltd

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
3,041
Location
Phoenix
Real Name
Thomas Eisenmann
Oh, come on. Leave the Bean out of this. Everything Mr. Bean does is classic.:D
 

Paul_Scott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
6,545

Ok- I see your point now, and wouldn't disagree. Though I think Universal has been one of the more liberal studios as far as genre range and age of material they've released goes. Sony needs to do a better job on the Bd side, because it's clear that Fox and MGM are going to be useless for the foreseeable future.
Fox just cancelled ID4 for Pete's sake. If they can't even get out a 10 year old summer effects blockbuster...
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,732

Thanks for the numbers ! Despite my earlier criticism I think Warner has to be commended for its policy to release so many older movies.

I will add to my criticism of the filtered classic movies that with regard to movies that I own this filtering was only distracting with movies originating on 70mm film stock, namely Mutiny on the Bounty, Grand Prix and Battle of the Bulge. In addition Battle of the Bulge also shows a nasty edgy look throughout the movie.

In stark contrast to this are movies like the Searchers, The Getaway, Blazing Saddles or Bullitt - they look very nice in that regard as DNR/grain redutction seems to have been applied much more cautious here. So why can't we have the movies that once looked best in all their splendor, including of course film grain and fine detail ? As of now IMO everything originating in 70mm falls short of what could be and actually in that regard is much worse than standard 35mm movies from the 60ies and 70ies - this is hopefully going to change.

I would also be very interested to hear somebody in the know educate us about this as we have no idea if the original masters of these movies are already heavily filtered and DNR'd or if they do not have the detail we expect them to have in the first place.

One thing is for sure: Once such a movie has been done it is very unlikely that a new and improved version on HDM will show up anytime soon so this has to be done right from the start. There are still movies like Khartoum and Ben Hur out there that I would love to see in a quality that does justice to the original.

Oliver Klohs
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
I don't trust anyone who blames the filtered look of large-format films on the source. I've seen many large-format prints that were spectacularly clear/sharp/detailed, only to find DVDs from those same films to be soft-focus and lacking in all fine detail.

There's an industry problem right now with scanning large-format films. This needs to be addressed.

On the note of filtering: Sony may have entered the HD realm with a few horrid discs (the first 5E), but since then have turned around and have not only commited to top-drawer HD transfers, but also by policy don't filter away film-grain. I'd like to see other studios officially take on a position like that to maintain all natural detail and resist the urge to air-brush away the film's natural detail/grain/information.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,732

Very true. Large format films suffer and not because they cannot look better, it is just that for some reason between the original camera negative and what arrives on HDM we lose too much PQ. I suppose that among the many potential pitfalls we mostly would find a combination of several factors that make the 70mm movies fall short.

And I never thought I'd say this but Casino Royale by Sony is a very good example of an HDM transfer that looks like film and is very detailed AND yet not looking enhanced in any way - I would not have expected Sony of all studios to surprise us with releases of this caliber after their very unimpressive track record on DVD ! So I have high hopes with regard to Lawrence of Arabia and also some Fox classics that supposedly have very good high-rez masters :)
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
Sony has made a completely turn-around. good for us (and for high-def).

If you want to see two of the very best looking live-film high-def images on any format, look at 7 years in tibet and the patriot. both transfers show astonishing detail and loads of natural ultra-fine film grain when it's in the source print. It's literally like watching a pristine projected 35mm film-print: no digital signature whatsoever.

BTW, Casino Royale was shot on digital 1080p24.
 

Danny_N

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 2, 2001
Messages
314
Real Name
Danny

All added. Thanks.
My personal interest lies in Hollywood movies from the early 40's until the late 60's and then mainly noirs and westerns so that's why I overlooked a few seventies movies (not just comedies ;)).
 

Danny_N

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 2, 2001
Messages
314
Real Name
Danny

If I'm not mistaken, all Warner DVDs (and HDs and BDs) of large format films are actually mastered from 35mm elements. The reduction from 70mm to 35mm could account for some loss of detail.
 

JediFonger

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
4,241
Real Name
YiFeng You
fight club (1999) is a classic. ratatouille (2007) is a classic. stardust (2007) is a classic. miami vice (2006) is a classic. i don't believe age has anything to do with it. a classic is a classic is a classic and gets better w/age.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826

The first Ben Hur DVD (very detailed) was from 35mm. The last Ben Hur DVD (soft and blurry) was 65mm source.

Fox also (to the best of my knowlege) used 65mm for Hello Dolly on DVD and that's another example of a DVD that looks only marginally better than the 4x3 letterboxed laserdisc in terms of overal picture detail.

Also,

a 35mm print made from a 65/70mm reduction will look BETTER than a 35mm print made from a 35mm source.

Just like a cassette recording from a CD will sound better than a cassette dub of another cassette.

I've seen 35mm prints of many large-format-shot films and they are strikingly clear/sharp and look noticably better than the average 35mm print (2001 was an example). 2001 is also an example of a BD/HD DVD that really falls short of the clarity of the 35mm print, regardless of the praise it's received (though I don't know what the problem is there, supposedly WB used a 35mm print and not a large-format negative).
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce

Casino Royale was shot primaraly in super 35 with Arricam ST and LT cameras. Only the Miami Skyline background plates were shot with a Panavision Genesis HD camera.

However I must say that there is a lot of post digital processing going on in this film and while it looks great, it doesn't look much like film to me.

Doug
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,561
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top