73 replies to this topic

[Bucky]

The Godfather for me is on of the real triumphs of the format, the presentation is exceptional and Coppolla himself couldn't believe how beautiful they look. Unfortunately though the companies will always look to get us to double dip etc because that's how they make their money.

i actually watched the feature on the restoration of The Godfather films last night. for my blurays i am not looking for a digitally pristine image when i am watching movies, i just want it to look as close to how it did when it was released in cinemas and for the most part a lot of the bluray releases accomplish this.

[Turn]

I have a Blu-ray player and still don't buy upconverting doing much after you're used to Blu-ray's quality. I still see the differences and they are pretty glaring.

An example is the original Mission Impossible TV series. Before I had Blu-ray I was watching these on my regular DVD player on a 20-inch television and they looked near pristine. I watched the same DVDs on the big screen on the Blu-ray player and they look like I was watching a standard cable broadcast on a regular television.

As far as some Blu-rays not living up to standard, that happens as well, but in a minority of cases. My big disappointment is Interview With the Vampire. But those done right, nothing else can compare.

[jamie00007]

The Godfather Blu Ray is stunning. One of the few double-dips Ive purchased. Though it does owe a lot of that to the restoration of the film. Amazing how bad the original film stock had become when compared to how it looked after being restored.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I was under the impression that The Wrath of Khan was pretty good with little DNR compared to the other films. Am I wrong?

Star Trek II is the only film of the bunch that was given a proper restoration (through Lowry Digital, I believe, who also did the Bonds) and a new transfer, so it looks quite good.

The rest of the films use old transfers which were made worse by digital manipulation like excessive noise reduction and contrast boosting.

There seems to be a mindset among certain video engineers that everything in high-def must look like live sports or the Discovery Channel - overly bright, clean, sharp and colourful, which runs counter to the aesthetic of the vast majority of films made from the late 1960s to about the mid 1990s.

[Professor Dent]

I have a Blu-ray player and still don't buy upconverting doing much after you're used to Blu-ray's quality. I still see the differences and they are pretty glaring.

An example is the original Mission Impossible TV series. Before I had Blu-ray I was watching these on my regular DVD player on a 20-inch television and they looked near pristine. I watched the same DVDs on the big screen on the Blu-ray player and they look like I was watching a standard cable broadcast on a regular television.

As far as some Blu-rays not living up to standard, that happens as well, but in a minority of cases. My big disappointment is Interview With the Vampire. But those done right, nothing else can compare.

I agree on upconverting being about as good as regular TV. With a DVD, as soon as you see the first green preview screen, you can immediately tell the difference. The text on the screen of an upconverted DVD looks like a photo you zoomed in just a bit too far on whereas the text on the Blu-ray looks super crisp & sharp with no jagged edges. I think the upconverting feature was hype by the manufacturers to get people to upgrade to new Blu-ray players. Better than nothing but not a substitute for Blu-ray.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I think the upconverting feature was hype by the manufacturers to get people to upgrade to new Blu-ray players. Better than nothing but not a substitute for Blu-ray.

Upconversion in DVD players is nothing more than a marketing hook. If you have an HD set, it's already upconverting (or downconverting) everything that isn't an exact match to its native resolution - if it's an LCD or plasma, it has to in order to display an image.

The only advantage to having the player handle the conversion is if the player has better scaling circuitry than the set.

[jamie00007]

Going a little OT here, but looks like WB have screwed up the Lord Of The Rings Blu Rays. Only probably the most awaited Blu Rays ever.
Theatrical versions only, bad transfers with excessive DNR and none of the commentaries or features from the DVDs. Looks like three more films that I'll be sticking with my DVDs for.

Edited by jamie00007, 31 March 2010 - 05:06 AM.

[captnash2]

i know everyone thinks picture quality is the USP for blu ray but i think the interactive aspects are as important.

shame that only CR UE blu ray makes use of the in movie option.
the 10 avaliable classic bond blu rays should have been rejigged to use that option for their extras as well.

[Joe Bond]

i know everyone thinks picture quality is the USP for blu ray but i think the interactive aspects are as important.

shame that only CR UE blu ray makes use of the in movie option.
the 10 avaliable classic bond blu rays should have been rejigged to use that option for their extras as well.

Are you referring to the ability to select scenes while watching the movie or selecting special features within the movie because they already have this feature but if your referring to having interactive feature while watching the special features then they don't have this but not many Blu-ray discs do at all it really depends on the studio. The CR Blu-ray is Sony while the other Bonds on MGM/Fox so Sony may use this feature for their Blu-rays while Fox may not use this feature for their Blu-rays. Frankly, I don't think they should redo them for this feature since all it does is make it faster to access the special features while watching a special feature and does it really hurt to just go back to the main menu .

[Dekard77]

In The Line Of Fire,The Arrival, Die Hard 1,Die Harder and Invasion aren't that great at all on Blu. Die Hards and In the Line Of Fire were like watching VHS tapes. I was really shocked. Read very similar reviews on Predator and Dracula.

Escape To Athena, Never Say Never Again,Gattacca, Ronin, Face-Off and Gauntlet all looked very impressive and felt like watching a whole new movie.

Eagle Eye,Batman Begins, Kingdom Of Heaven and Gone in 60 Seconds looked similar to their DVD versions.

X Files Fight the Future, Mission Impossible were both better than DVD but not as great as it should be.

I still can't believe how good MWTGG looks on Blu. It's honestly like a work of art. No wonder people loved watching Bond films in the cinema. TB slightly uneven but the outdoor shots are superb. LTK never looked better especially the grand finale.

I have a Sony LCD and Blu and feel that compatibility also delivers a better picture. Samsung and Panasonic I really wasn't that impressed.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Predator and Die Hard look better on blu-ray than they did in theatres when they were first released.

I think people sometimes have unrealistic expectations about what films should look like on blu - especially films made from about the late 1960s to early 1990s. Due to the film stocks and shooting styles of the time, many of those films are going to look soft and grainy.

The Bond films of that era look exceptional on blu-ray, but they were large budget productions that always had a very "clean" look, and they had a multi-million dollar digital restoration of the sort that most tiles will never warrant.

[Dekard77]

Predator and Die Hard look better on blu-ray than they did in theatres when they were first released.

I think people sometimes have unrealistic expectations about what films should look like on blu - especially films made from about the late 1960s to early 1990s. Due to the film stocks and shooting styles of the time, many of those films are going to look soft and grainy.

The Bond films of that era look exceptional on blu-ray, but they were large budget productions that always had a very "clean" look, and they had a multi-million dollar digital restoration of the sort that most tiles will never warrant.

Sorry but can't agree with you on that, I have seen Die Hards in the Cinema,VHS,DVD and the Blu version is nothing but ordinary or quite similar to the VHS version except for audio. I am sure the studio's can do better than that. Especially since they can make more money. Also boasting high resolution pic quality and delivering something else is just pathetic. Predator was released twice on DVD and latter version is quite good. I really haven't seen the Blu version but if it's like Die Hards then I will stay away.
Warners pulled same stunt with Heat and Batman films but later released superior dvd versions. Paramount was one of few studios that actually gave a good deal on pic quality when it came to DVD and Blu.

If Escape To Athena can look brilliant , am sure a film made a decade later in a major studio should fare much better!

[bond 16.05.72]

Predator and Die Hard look better on blu-ray than they did in theatres when they were first released.

I think people sometimes have unrealistic expectations about what films should look like on blu - especially films made from about the late 1960s to early 1990s. Due to the film stocks and shooting styles of the time, many of those films are going to look soft and grainy.

The Bond films of that era look exceptional on blu-ray, but they were large budget productions that always had a very "clean" look, and they had a multi-million dollar digital restoration of the sort that most tiles will never warrant.

Sorry but can't agree with you on that, I have seen Die Hards in the Cinema,VHS,DVD and the Blu version is nothing but ordinary or quite similar to the VHS version except for audio. I am sure the studio's can do better than that. Especially since they can make more money. Also boasting high resolution pic quality and delivering something else is just pathetic. Predator was released twice on DVD and latter version is quite good. I really haven't seen the Blu version but if it's like Die Hards then I will stay away.
Warners pulled same stunt with Heat and Batman films but later released superior dvd versions. Paramount was one of few studios that actually gave a good deal on pic quality when it came to DVD and Blu.

If Escape To Athena can look brilliant , am sure a film made a decade later in a major studio should fare much better!

As I said in my post the studios will always be trying to put out inferior versions to capitalise on new formats, I'm holding back on The Die Hard's as I've a feeling more impressive sets will arrive. Fox obviously wanted to get some classics on the format without too much effort, studios will always do this and it's not likely to change.

I do think some people have unrealistic expectations about what older films will look like, I've heard people criticise Heat on Blu I was more than happy with it and have never seen it look and sound better.

Terminator looks better than it ever has but not amazing although a Lowry restoration is apparently on the way. The Bonds have had extensive work done on them and the work Lowry has done on them was more likely for the HD format more than the standard def U.E's this is where the restoration is really impressing.


What I'm really looking forward to is how both Jaws and Raiders look, if ever there were 2 titles that will really show off the format and how much if they are done right they improve on any other format before alongside the original Star wars Trilogy these will be the films that really give the format the injection it needs.

[B. Brown]

I look forward to "Raiders", too.

It's a pretty vibrant film without Blu-Ray. Should look really nice with the enhancement.

[Loomis]

Predator was released twice on DVD and latter version is quite good. I really haven't seen the Blu version but if it's like Die Hards then I will stay away.

PREDATOR looks awful on Blu-ray. You should indeed stay away.

It ought to be illegal to put anything out on Blu-ray without adequately polishing it up for the format. Otherwise, it's just false advertising, causing people to waste their money on sub-par "high definition".

"But Loom," I hear you protest, "some films are too old/too low budget/too shot-in-a-soft-way/too whatever to ever look particularly good on Blu-ray." Fine. I accept that. So don't put them out on Blu-ray at all.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

PREDATOR looks awful on Blu-ray. You should indeed stay away.

It ought to be illegal to put anything out on Blu-ray without adequately polishing it up for the format. Otherwise, it's just false advertising, causing people to waste their money on sub-par "high definition".

Sub par? Do you not consider film a high-definition format?Predator is a little soft and very grainy, but that's the way it was shot and that's the way it looked in the theatre. The blu-ray still looks noticeably better than the DVD, but your mileage may vary.

"But Loom," I hear you protest, "some films are too old/too low budget/too shot-in-a-soft-way/too whatever to ever look particularly good on Blu-ray." Fine. I accept that. So don't put them out on Blu-ray at all.

Speak for yourself. You can always choose not to buy them, but I'd like to have them. I have yet to see a blu-ray that isn't at least a minor upgrade over the DVD.*


*Unless it's been digitally manipulated a la Gladiator.

[B. Brown]

Predator was released twice on DVD and latter version is quite good. I really haven't seen the Blu version but if it's like Die Hards then I will stay away.

PREDATOR looks awful on Blu-ray. You should indeed stay away.

It ought to be illegal to put anything out on Blu-ray without adequately polishing it up for the format. Otherwise, it's just false advertising, causing people to waste their money on sub-par "high definition".

"But Loom," I hear you protest, "some films are too old/too low budget/too shot-in-a-soft-way/too whatever to ever look particularly good on Blu-ray." Fine. I accept that. So don't put them out on Blu-ray at all.

DA CIA GOTCHU PUSHING TOO MEHNEY PENSUHLS, DILLON?

[jamie00007]

A lot of people in this thread (and everywhere else) dont seem to have the right idea about Blu Ray. There is no such thing as a movie being too old, too soft, too anything else for Blu Ray. 35mm film, whether it was shot yesterday or 75 years ago, is the same and superior to any home format. And any movie from anytime shot on it has the exact same advantages on blu ray, whether its Transformers 2 or Citizen Kane.

The point of Blu Ray is not to make the movies look different, its to make them look that one step closer to how they looked in the cinema. If you're expecting them to make The Godfather look as shiny as Avatar than you're missing the point, thats not what Blu Ray is about. Its about about making the Godfather look as close as it did to its original theatrical release, grain and all.

Nothing needs to be "polished" or altered in anyway for blu ray. What they need to do is make sure the transfer comes from a good quality print, one thats been restored if its an older movie. But thats not unique to Blu Ray, the same thing goes for movies on DVD or broadcast on television.

Rufus Ffolkes is right, if a movie was originally released with a soft or grainy look, that is part of its look and thats the way it should look on Blu Ray if its done properly. That is in no way a flaw of the blu ray.

Edited by jamie00007, 01 April 2010 - 05:03 AM.

[MarkA]

A lot of people in this thread (and everywhere else) dont seem to have the right idea about Blu Ray. There is no such thing as a movie being too old, too soft, too anything else for Blu Ray. 35mm film, whether it was shot yesterday or 75 years ago, is the same and superior to any home format. And any movie from anytime shot on it has the exact same advantages on blu ray, whether its Transformers 2 or Citizen Kane.

The point of Blu Ray is not to make the movies look different, its to make them look that one step closer to how they looked in the cinema. If you're expecting them to make The Godfather look as shiny as Avatar than you're missing the point, thats not what Blu Ray is about. Its about about making the Godfather look as close as it did to its original theatrical release, grain and all.

Nothing needs to be "polished" or altered in anyway for blu ray. What they need to do is make sure the transfer comes from a good quality print, one thats been restored if its an older movie. But thats not unique to Blu Ray, the same thing goes for movies on DVD or broadcast on television.

Rufus Ffolkes is right, if a movie was originally released with a soft or grainy look, that is part of its look and thats the way it should look on Blu Ray if its done properly. That is in no way a flaw of the blu ray.

The most sense spoken on this forum so far. There is an incredible amount of ignorance spoken about the purpose of blu-ray. The fact some films have been blurred to remove film grain and then re-sharpened for the blu-ray release just because the public expect every film to be super clean and sharp, really miss the point. All you end up with is travesties like the blu-rays of 'Patton', 'Near Dark' and 'Gangs of New York'. All the faces have a horrible waxy look to them. One of the best transfers is Warner’s 'Bullitt' which is as wonderfully grainy and film-like as it is meant to be.

[captnash2]

i know everyone thinks picture quality is the USP for blu ray but i think the interactive aspects are as important.

shame that only CR UE blu ray makes use of the in movie option.
the 10 avaliable classic bond blu rays should have been rejigged to use that option for their extras as well.

Are you referring to the ability to select scenes while watching the movie or selecting special features within the movie because they already have this feature but if your referring to having interactive feature while watching the special features then they don't have this but not many Blu-ray discs do at all it really depends on the studio. The CR Blu-ray is Sony while the other Bonds on MGM/Fox so Sony may use this feature for their Blu-rays while Fox may not use this feature for their Blu-rays. Frankly, I don't think they should redo them for this feature since all it does is make it faster to access the special features while watching a special feature and does it really hurt to just go back to the main menu .

check out the in movie commentaries on 'the matrix' blu ray box set and the nolan 'batman' movies to see how behind the scenes footage can be seamless presented alongside the option of viewing each movie.

[David Schofield]

For those in need of a tip on whether to buy a Blu Ray: NORTH BY NORTHWEST.

I got the remastered NBN back in 2000 on DVD. It had always seemed as if a lot of TLC had gone into recreating what Hitchcock intended. It certainly looked AMAZING compared with what I'd seen on TV.

As a result of a cheap Amazon deal (I have only 6 Blu Rays) I bought the NBN Blu Ray last month.

The issue here about Blu Ray v DVD is more than just about sharpness, image quality, etc. Sure, the Blu Ray looks sharper and clearer (though not so muchas you'd pay c£20 for it at HMV!) but the colours are darker, the skin tones browner rather than beige. Now, Grant's suit looks mid-grey throughout; on the DVD it was a very pale sharkskin!

This is a totally different in interpretation of the look of the film by those responsible for the remastering to Blu Ray. Sure, NBN is a 50 year old classic, more in need of genuine restoration than a modern film. But the two version, DVD and Blu Ray, look so different: they could almost be different versions of the same script!

However, for what it's worth, my research on the 'Net suggests the darker look of the Blu Ray is closer to Hitchcock's original version. But then, they said the same 10 years ago about the paler, washed out DVD remastering...

[jamie00007]

Colours should look a little different even if a Blu Ray and DVD used the same transfer as Blu Ray has a far greater color field, and everything should look more vibrant and film-like. Darker colors are darker and brighter colors are brighter. More shades and contrast than you'd get on a DVD. But in the end it really comes down to where they transfered the film from and what shape it was in.

Look at the difference in colors in this comparison shot from Dr No for example:

Though Im pretty sure they got the DVD shot from the Special Edition not the UE, it still shows how much colors can change from a film restoration and on BD. The sand isnt just brighter, its a totally different color.

The fact some films have been blurred to remove film grain and then re-sharpened for the blu-ray release just because the public expect every film to be super clean and sharp, really miss the point. All you end up with is travesties like the blu-rays of 'Patton', 'Near Dark' and 'Gangs of New York'. All the faces have a horrible waxy look to them.

Yep. Its the modern equivalent of pan & scan and is just as ruinous to a film. People have gotten over their fear of black bars but now they expect every movie to look like it was filmed by Michael Bay yesterday. The Gladiator blu ray actually had arrows flying through the sky removed as a by-product of the computer process to remove grain and make everything ultra sharp and clear.

My all time favorite Blu Rays are the Coppola Restoration versions of the Godfather series. The movies look stunning, exactly like the movies looked the first time they were shown. Thats the way they need to do all old films. Incredibly annoying when I hear someone complain about them being grainy.

Edited by jamie00007, 01 April 2010 - 10:56 AM.

[Loomis]

A lot of people in this thread (and everywhere else) dont seem to have the right idea about Blu Ray. There is no such thing as a movie being too old, too soft, too anything else for Blu Ray. 35mm film, whether it was shot yesterday or 75 years ago, is the same and superior to any home format. And any movie from anytime shot on it has the exact same advantages on blu ray, whether its Transformers 2 or Citizen Kane.

The point of Blu Ray is not to make the movies look different, its to make them look that one step closer to how they looked in the cinema. If you're expecting them to make The Godfather look as shiny as Avatar than you're missing the point, thats not what Blu Ray is about. Its about about making the Godfather look as close as it did to its original theatrical release, grain and all.

Nothing needs to be "polished" or altered in anyway for blu ray. What they need to do is make sure the transfer comes from a good quality print, one thats been restored if its an older movie. But thats not unique to Blu Ray, the same thing goes for movies on DVD or broadcast on television.

Rufus Ffolkes is right, if a movie was originally released with a soft or grainy look, that is part of its look and thats the way it should look on Blu Ray if its done properly. That is in no way a flaw of the blu ray.

The most sense spoken on this forum so far. There is an incredible amount of ignorance spoken about the purpose of blu-ray. The fact some films have been blurred to remove film grain and then re-sharpened for the blu-ray release just because the public expect every film to be super clean and sharp, really miss the point. All you end up with is travesties like the blu-rays of 'Patton', 'Near Dark' and 'Gangs of New York'. All the faces have a horrible waxy look to them. One of the best transfers is Warner’s 'Bullitt' which is as wonderfully grainy and film-like as it is meant to be.

All points noted, but it doesn't change my points that:

1. Some films look terrible on Blu-ray.

2. Some films aren't deserving (for want of a better word) of being issued on the format.

I'm not calling for every disc to be "super clean and sharp". I'm merely demanding that everything on Blu-ray should be a significant, appreciable improvement on its DVD counterpart. Otherwise, why bother?

Rufus Ffolkes points out that I have the right not to buy, but why would anyone buy a Blu-ray that's not a noticeable step up from the DVD version? Personally, I didn't purchase a Blu-ray player and HDTV only to watch discs and then go: "Hmmm.... well, I guess this movie is slightly superior to the standard DVD, I'll give it that."

The danger in this, I think, is that the public will get used to substandard Blu-rays and studios won't bother to pay for titles to be presented on the format with love and care because they figure that Joe Public will happily buy them anyway.

[bond 16.05.72]

A lot of people in this thread (and everywhere else) dont seem to have the right idea about Blu Ray. There is no such thing as a movie being too old, too soft, too anything else for Blu Ray. 35mm film, whether it was shot yesterday or 75 years ago, is the same and superior to any home format. And any movie from anytime shot on it has the exact same advantages on blu ray, whether its Transformers 2 or Citizen Kane.

The point of Blu Ray is not to make the movies look different, its to make them look that one step closer to how they looked in the cinema. If you're expecting them to make The Godfather look as shiny as Avatar than you're missing the point, thats not what Blu Ray is about. Its about about making the Godfather look as close as it did to its original theatrical release, grain and all.

Nothing needs to be "polished" or altered in anyway for blu ray. What they need to do is make sure the transfer comes from a good quality print, one thats been restored if its an older movie. But thats not unique to Blu Ray, the same thing goes for movies on DVD or broadcast on television.

Rufus Ffolkes is right, if a movie was originally released with a soft or grainy look, that is part of its look and thats the way it should look on Blu Ray if its done properly. That is in no way a flaw of the blu ray.

The most sense spoken on this forum so far. There is an incredible amount of ignorance spoken about the purpose of blu-ray. The fact some films have been blurred to remove film grain and then re-sharpened for the blu-ray release just because the public expect every film to be super clean and sharp, really miss the point. All you end up with is travesties like the blu-rays of 'Patton', 'Near Dark' and 'Gangs of New York'. All the faces have a horrible waxy look to them. One of the best transfers is Warner’s 'Bullitt' which is as wonderfully grainy and film-like as it is meant to be.

I pretty much covered this in a earlier post in this thread but I guess my posts don't count as much as some, people might want to read.

I already spoke sense about this, it a little insulting that you imply we are ignorant when I stated this in the first page if you want to read it, I covered The Godfather issue and have covered months ago before in other threads, I'm perfectly aware of the purpose of Blu ray and have not all of sudden been enlightned by this post.

[Dekard77]

A lot of people in this thread (and everywhere else) dont seem to have the right idea about Blu Ray. There is no such thing as a movie being too old, too soft, too anything else for Blu Ray. 35mm film, whether it was shot yesterday or 75 years ago, is the same and superior to any home format. And any movie from anytime shot on it has the exact same advantages on blu ray, whether its Transformers 2 or Citizen Kane.

The point of Blu Ray is not to make the movies look different, its to make them look that one step closer to how they looked in the cinema. If you're expecting them to make The Godfather look as shiny as Avatar than you're missing the point, thats not what Blu Ray is about. Its about about making the Godfather look as close as it did to its original theatrical release, grain and all.

Nothing needs to be "polished" or altered in anyway for blu ray. What they need to do is make sure the transfer comes from a good quality print, one thats been restored if its an older movie. But thats not unique to Blu Ray, the same thing goes for movies on DVD or broadcast on television.

Rufus Ffolkes is right, if a movie was originally released with a soft or grainy look, that is part of its look and thats the way it should look on Blu Ray if its done properly. That is in no way a flaw of the blu ray.

The most sense spoken on this forum so far. There is an incredible amount of ignorance spoken about the purpose of blu-ray. The fact some films have been blurred to remove film grain and then re-sharpened for the blu-ray release just because the public expect every film to be super clean and sharp, really miss the point. All you end up with is travesties like the blu-rays of 'Patton', 'Near Dark' and 'Gangs of New York'. All the faces have a horrible waxy look to them. One of the best transfers is Warner’s 'Bullitt' which is as wonderfully grainy and film-like as it is meant to be.

All points noted, but it doesn't change my points that:

1. Some films look terrible on Blu-ray.

2. Some films aren't deserving (for want of a better word) of being issued on the format.

I'm not calling for every disc to be "super clean and sharp". I'm merely demanding that everything on Blu-ray should be a significant, appreciable improvement on its DVD counterpart. Otherwise, why bother?

Rufus Ffolkes points out that I have the right not to buy, but why would anyone buy a Blu-ray that's not a noticeable step up from the DVD version? Personally, I didn't purchase a Blu-ray player and HDTV only to watch discs and then go: "Hmmm.... well, I guess this movie is slightly superior to the standard DVD, I'll give it that."

The danger in this, I think, is that the public will get used to substandard Blu-rays and studios won't bother to pay for titles to be presented on the format with love and care because they figure that Joe Public will happily buy them anyway.

Well said, agreed. The Godfathers are restored to a new look something which I doubt was even shown in original theatrical release. Coppola may have wanted to give a specific updated look. Same with Star Wars films, they were restored to newly(to meet audience,director expectations) with added effects.
Richard Donner didn't want to modify look of movie but he did manage to release a print far superior to the original VHS,LD and first DVD version.
So I do believe a good director like John McTiernan, shot these movies to look fabulous on screen and if required to look even better when released on home video whatever the format may be. I did notice my NTSC Predator vhs was much better than Pal version.
Terminator 2 Blu has very similar criticism which was later released on much better version. Waiting to buy that. I had two versions of T2 dvd's and they were very different.
As for the washed out look, sometimes it helps the movie to look more vintage but honestly it's quite easy to see a lazy transfer. There is also nothing wrong with updating a movie with the right team to enhance viewing pleasure.

[jamie00007]

bond 16.05.72, I will put a disclaimer on every post I make in the future saying "This post is not directed towards bond 16.05.72" and shall do a search on your name on every subject I discuss to ensure I dont discuss anything you've mentioned. How that be?

All points noted, but it doesn't change my points that:

1. Some films look terrible on Blu-ray.

2. Some films aren't deserving (for want of a better word) of being issued on the format.

1. But that has nothing to do with Blu Ray as a format or the movie, it has to do with publishers putting dodgy versions of movies onto the format. Its like the early days of DVD when we were getting crappy DVDs that looked as though someone transferred them from a bad quality VHS. Its the same thing now. Its kind of like saying some films look terrible on DVD based on the likes of he original release of 'Heat' which looked awful. Theres been quite a few bad transfers. But whether the movie is a B grade film from 1935 or Avatar, the potential advantages of Blu Ray are equal for both.

2. Remember, film is far superior in resolution to any home format yet. Blu Ray is about high resolution. So any movie, no matter the era or genre, has the same advantage from being viewed in high definition. Blu Ray wont be as good as film, but as far as the human eye can distinguish, its close. Theres really no such thing as a movie not being deserving of Blu Ray, a Blu Ray transfer done properly has the same advantages for every movie. Even an Ed Wood monster movie from the 50's would look better on blu ray, as you're watching it closer to how it looked in the cinema.

As for the washed out look, sometimes it helps the movie to look more vintage but honestly it's quite easy to see a lazy transfer. There is also nothing wrong with updating a movie with the right team to enhance viewing pleasure.

I could not disagree more. That sort of thing is no different than George Lucas messing with the Star Wars OT in my book. Worse when the original director isnt involved. Where does it end?
There is nothing lazy about about presenting the movie in its original form, thats the hardest thing there is to do. Look at the millions they spent on the old Bond movies and the Godfather to get them looking how they're supposed to.

[B. Brown]

bond 16.05.72, I will put a disclaimer on every post I make in the future saying "This post is not directed towards bond 16.05.72" and shall do a search on your name on every subject I discuss to ensure I dont discuss anything you've mentioned. How that be?

Don't worry about it.

He'll still find something to cry about, anyway.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Remember, film is far superior in resolution to any home format yet. Blu Ray is about high resolution. So any movie, no matter the era or genre, has the same advantage from being viewed in high definition. Blu Ray wont be as good as film, but as far as the human eye can distinguish, its close. Theres really no such thing as a movie not being deserving of Blu Ray, a Blu Ray transfer done properly has the same advantages for every movie. Even an Ed Wood monster movie from the 50's would look better on blu ray, as you're watching it closer to how it looked in the cinema.

Yes and no. A 35mm original camera negative has more detail than a blu-ray, but a release print - which is three or more generations removed from the negative and the only thing you've actually ever seen at the cinema - doesn't.

Blu-ray is actually very close to 2K digital projection and is capable of resolving greater detail than a film print - blu-ray has 1080 lines versus a typical release print's 600-800 lines. Film has other advantages over blu-ray, though - it's analog, uncompressed and has a greater dynamic range.

[Loomis]

A 35mm original camera negative has more detail than a blu-ray, but a release print - which is three or more generations removed from the negative and the only thing you've actually ever seen at the cinema - doesn't.

Interesting. Didn't know that. But since adopting Blu-ray I've started to become very critical of the image quality I see at the cinema, thinking it looks markedly inferior to Blu-ray - softer, grainier and with much less definition. Now I know why.

[Joe Bond]

A 35mm original camera negative has more detail than a blu-ray, but a release print - which is three or more generations removed from the negative and the only thing you've actually ever seen at the cinema - doesn't.

Interesting. Didn't know that. But since adopting Blu-ray I've started to become very critical of the image quality I see at the cinema, thinking it looks markedly inferior to Blu-ray - softer, grainier and with much less definition. Now I know why.

I just found this out on another forum, hometheaterforum, but it makes sense to me since when I saw Edge of Darkness, which was the first movie I saw theatrically after I adopted Blu-ray, I thought the text was softer than the sharp text I have become used to on Blu-ray. One of the bad things about the whole lack of quality on release prints is that when you have a classic film like The Guns of Navarone the process of copying the original negative for release took a toll. I have read that this film originally had a Technicolor print which was very sharp but Columbia decided to convert it to Eastman color and which resulted to good to okay quality for its release prints. To make it even worse the original negative ended up having many dupe shots, usually worse quality than originally, edited in after its release which means it will never look as good as it did when it was originally shot when it does come to Blu-ray. Thankfully not many classic films have been as mishandled like The Guns of Navarone has been.