How often do you buy DVD's that were released over 5+ years ago? (1 Viewer)

[CraigF]

Rob Roy...yeah, I broke down for that one not so long ago. Truly a great movie, and even more truly an abominable transfer. I don't know the story on that one, makes me think of the original Crying Game and Scarface releases (of the total video jokes I have bought that come to mind). These may be ones you DON'T want to buy the old releases... But they are inept transfers, and that has happened to lots of movies, and still happens today (most recently The Longest Day for me). The problem isn't that they're old DVD's, the problem is that they were poorly transferred by even the standards of the day. Blade Runner is gorgeous compared to the others mentioned above, quite watchable though not good, and Contact is very old and similarly tolerable but needs work...

You could just as easily make a list of the DVD's released in the last year or so that are awful. That may be of more benefit to members as they are not *expecting* them to be so bad, and is much more of a scary thing, least to me. Certain Walt Disney tins come to mind, to start the list...

 

[george kaplan]

I think you guys need to keep some perspective. There's a huge difference between an older dvd release that isn't up to current reference quality, and a truly unwatchable dvd (e.g., a Madacy dvd). The only dvds I'd routinely be wary of are PD ones. If I went through and purged my dvd collection of dvds I'd bought in the late 90s just cause they don't look as great as today's best dvds, I'd be throwing out a lot of great films that are perfectly watchable and bring me great enjoyment.

 

[CraigF]

Actually, I *was* keeping perspective on what I mentioned. I can only presume you haven't seen those ones? You would not watch them more than once... The point is they are old DVD's to not buy, they have all the problems and much much worse, the type of flaws on old DVD's that perhaps prompted the OP's thread. If all DVD's had looked like those we'd still be watching VHS. They are worse than anybody's expectation for anything, and a permanent indictment of the major studios that put them out.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Yesterday, I finally bought "The Best Years of Our Lives" which I had somehow managed not to buy since 1997. I bought the MGM RSDL version from 2000. The 1997 flipper has a marginally better transfer and extras, but it is a bit pricey on the used DVD market these days.

Regards,

 

[MarkHastings]

But as far as the MPEG2 compression is concerned, the release year is very relevant.

MPEG2 video can look stunning, but that all depends on how it is compressed. Over the years, they have developed better methods of compression. Not that the MPEG2 algorithms are better, it's the way the programs analyze the information, that has changed. The better the file is analyzed, the better the rendered MPEG2 video will look.

Back in 1997, the MPEG2 technology was not what it is today, so even with studios best efforts, they could not develop DVD's as stunning as they are if done today.

Also factor in the time it takes. Faster systems means faster computations. Faster computations means you can allow for more analyzation (if I casn make up a word) and more analyzation means better MPEG2 compression.

Back in 97, I went to seminars on the first Sonic DVD authoring system...they even left a system at my office for a month (to play with). For $50,000 it was great for the time, but now, I can do even better compressions with a much cheaper system.

 

[andySu]

Quite a bit I would say, I’m really looking for the ones that appeared in 70mm or the blow-up 70mm prints with the glorious six-track Dolby Stereo, the baby boom types and the split-surround types as well.

So far I have an endless list, and there’s something special about the way the sound over the new releases.

Around 900 films on DVD, and counting!

 

[Jim_K]

It's not often that I find myself purchasing an older DVD release. The only reason is that I've done a fair job at keeping up with releases for the past 8+ years I've been collecting the format. Picking up what I want to own as they get released.

If there is something I'd just discovered and the DVD is OAR, the age of it's release wouldn't hold me back unless there is a newer/updated release planned. What would hold me back is in the event a title is out of print and is fetching astronomical prices, then I have to gauge just how much do I really want to own that particular title.

 

[AaronSCH]

I recently hunted down all of the AIP "Midnight Movies" that featured Vincent Price and the very rare anamorphic widescreen version of "The Deep." I doubt some of these older films will get full blown remasters for an HD format any time soon, if ever. However my interest in back catalog titles is definitely waning. At this point I think I will stop buying standard DVDs for all new releases since they simply look flat compared to their HD-DVD counterparts.


My Collection

 

[MarkHastings]

That's the other thing that worries me. When I see an original release of 98, I get cautious because I'd hate to buy it and then find out a newer edition was coming out soon.

Well, again, the main reason for the thread was that I wanted to get American Graffiti. Seeing that it was released in 9/98, I started thinking about how that was the same time I started buying DVD's through Amazon. Wow! Talk about seeming like forever ago!!!

It does say it's anamorphic, so that's one concern I don't have to worry about...The price is $13, which isn't super low, but not too bad. I'll probably bite the bullet and get it just because...

 

[AaronSCH]

I'd wait on American Graffiti. Since this is a George Lucas film you can bet the farm that another version is on the way.... Search the internet because I am pretty sure it is now available for less than 10 bucks. Check the year of release on older titles .... the studios love "Anniversary Editions" American Grafitti was released in 1973. The film's 35th Anniversary is in 2008. But I predict Universal will have an HD-DVD and perhaps a remastered DVD release soon.

 

[cafink]

I would never, ever let the age of a DVD deter me from a purchase. Authoring tools haven't advanced that much in the past nine years. There are a lot of older DVDs that look great, and a lot of newer DVDs that look awful. The age simply isn't a factor for me.

Neither is the prospect of a newer edition coming out. I used to be obsessed with always having the latest, greatest release of any movie I owned on DVD, but one day I realized that I almost never bother to watch the special features, and decided I'd stop wasting money on something I didn't use. I'll consider audio and video quality when thinking of upgrading, but unless it's one of my very favorite films, not supplements.

In fact, I'm almost the opposite in that there have been several times when the release of new "upgraded" DVD has prompted me to seek out the original. For example, when the "Explosive Extended Edition" of the Bourne Identity came out, I decided I ought to snap up the original version, which has a DTS track that was dropped for the "EEE," while it was still available. I did the same thing when there was a new edition of Fast Times at Ridgemont High, which was missing the original sound mix.

 

[MarkHastings]

Maybe not, but MPEG compression has.

 

[John Alderson]

I think somethinig that may be bigger than MPEG compression improvements is that back in the 97-2000 timeframe studios seemed more willing to release 2+ hour films on single layer discs. You just about never see that anymore... heck, even 1.5 hour films get dual layers almost all the time these days.

As for buying old discs, I do occasionally. Sometimes it's a film I just discovered; other times I just never got around to it for some reason. Recently I purchased Bridge on the River Kwai (I started a thread about its bizarre authoring) even though I've never seen it. I can't rent it anywhere near me, and I realized I'd drop the amount the DVD costs to see it in a theater in a heartbeat, so I just bought the disc. (I'm also a huge Laurence and Zhivago fan, yet somehow never saw BotRK).

Otherwise, I've pretty much bought the films that I'm going to own, other than new releases. More and more of my DVD viewing is taken up by TV on DVD these days too (we have too many series in the air right now: Lost, Buffy (and Angel soon), DS9, House, Monty Python... I gotta lay off and watch more films again!)

 

[jim.vaccaro]

Kwai has an excellent transfer, except for some mild EE in some shots and frame judder. Cinemascope film in 2.55:1 OAR and a nice Dolby 5.1 mix to boot! I spent $13 on the LE a year ago on a blind buy and it was definitely money well spent.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

American Graffiti is now available with More American Graffiti on the same disc, they're probably both the same transfers as the older discs though. I picked up the letterboxed laserdisc instead because of the doctoring the opening shot got on the DVD.

It amuses me when people say they won't buy a certain title just because it came out X number of years ago. Do all DVDs automatically start looking like crap after a certain amount of time? If it looks and sounds good, I don't care how old it is. Many movies that have been re-issued have not always been an improvement anyways.

I do get a kick out of watching VERY old video transfers sometimes though, like late 70s DiscoVision laserdiscs, but I'm weird that way

 

[MarkHastings]

Totally agreed, but how do I know if a 1998 released DVD looks and sounds good?

Like I said, the chances of bad compression today are still there, but those chances seem slimmer than those of '98.

For example, I always wanted Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story...when I finally bought it, I realized it was released in July of 1998 and all they did was port the LD over to DVD. Back in '98, that's what they did because they wanted to quickly get these discs out.

That's why I'm a bit cautious with 98 releases. They're like a box of cocolates....You never know what you're gonna....

 

[cafink]

...I can think of at least one upcoming high-profile release that suffers this exact shortcoming.

I'm not a huge stickler when it come to audio and video quality. If there's a title I want, I'll generally buy it regardless of how it looks or sounds (though I admit I tend to be picky about the inclusion of the original aspect ratio and sound mix). It's only an issue for me when there are multiple releases, in which case I'll try to seek out the best version. The year of release just doesn't come into the equation for me.

 

[MarkHastings]

I'm talking about 'main' features - I could care less if the American Graffiti bonus material was crap, I just want to know if the main feature is good looking.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Planning to watch it this weekend. I'll let you know how it looks.

 

[John Alderson]

I pretty much buy the films I want, regardless of video quality. Maybe that makes me a sucker, but with exceedingly rare exceptions even the crappiest DVD is better than VHS and even Laserdisc, which means it's the best I can get for that particular title (even if I know it could be better, like all non anamorphic widescreen transfers *cough*starwars*cough*).

I've always bought them for the films rather than as demo material. Of course I want the best video possible, but I'm impatient and will double dip later if the studio upgrades a title (shhh, don't tell them I said that!). These things are cheap enough to make that reasonable to me. (I.e. I didn't worry about the $15 I paid for the original Dr. Strangelove when the anamorphic widescreen version was released.)