Blu-Ray upgrades of previously released titles

[Daniel Eagan]

The downside for me is that a hyper sharp digital image in the home fundamentally changes how we look at visual media. The slight softness that was once typical of film— and flattering to actresses, and dreamlike in a Frank Borzage movie, and so on— is being replaced by a desire for an image where you can see the tiniest specs of detail in utter sharpness. I am often as delighted as anyone else by this— you can read street signs 10 blocks away in Criterion's Safety Last, that sort of thing. You can also see flaws no one ever saw. A while back I was watching You Only Live Twice, the James Bond film. And there's a scene where Blofeld picks up his cat, or sets it down, or something. And you can see this his little Mao jacket has a snag in the thread— no doubt from an earlier take, where the cat claw caught it. That's just bizarre, that we can notice such things now. (I was already having enough trouble from my belief that since William Sylvester plays one of the science advisers to president Alexander Knox in it, that means that Dr Heywood Floyd is part of the Bond universe as well as the 2001 one.) Already projected film seems slightly inferior in its real-thing imperfections to digital perfection.

It's not just movies. Magazines, postcards, even art books from as little as 30 or 40 years ago suffer from poor registration, bleeding colors, skewed lines. The color plates in my vintage Oz books are no match for the current reprints. Same with all those kids' novels illustrated by N.C. Wyeth that I used to love as a child. But sharper and clearer isn't always better.

We didn't switch to a flat-panel TV until a couple of years ago, and now our eyes and tastes have adjusted to where we expect a digital clarity and focus that were impossible in the analog years. I think something similar happened in music. Pete Townsend used to mix Who singles so they would sound good on crappy little transistor radios. Digital reissues often sound phony to me, or emphasize mistakes I didn't hear as a kid.

[Scoundrel]

" Pete Townsend used to mix Who singles so they would sound good on crappy little transistor radios..."

This practice was first attributed to Les Paul.

In regards to upgrading on Blu ray, THE CHAPLIN MUTUALS, BIRTH OF A NATION, METROPOLIS,
DRACULA (1931), are just a few of the titles that have all benefited from the conversion to Hi Def.

What I don't care for is the practice of DNR or over scrubbing a film due to grain.

[Mike Gebert]

Phil Spector, too; I heard a record producer once saying that the remastered versions didn't reveal anything because Spector had already crushed it all together. You can't turn the wall of sound back into individual instruments.

I'd say 95+% of the time, the gain in detail has been a wonderful thing for which I'm hugely grateful. The Chaplin Mutuals and Essanays, for instance, can come off like you're truly seeing them for the first time. But there are tradeoffs, and even if it's mostly a good thing, the point is that we're conditioned now to a digit-y sharpness of bits that wasn't always the intended look— or a possible one, given the technology of the time.

[countryslicker]

.....If a blu-ray significantly adds value to the film, either because superior elements were found and scanned in HD, or if the extras are worth an upgrade......

I've had the DVD of the 1995 BBC TV production of "Pride and Prejudice" for several years. All DVD releases have been scanned from positive 16mm television prints, with varying results and aspect ratios. It was originally screened on TV in a 4:3 aspect ratio resulting in quite severe image cropping. I recently upgraded to the Blu Ray version. The Blu Ray has been scanned frame-by-frame HD from the original Super 16mm 16.9 negative. The difference between the DVD and the Blu Ray is that between chalk and cheese. Amongst the The Blu Ray extras is a short documentary showing how the restoration was done.

Other movies I've upgraded to Blu Ray are "The Ten Commandments" (DeMille 1956), "South Pacific" 1958, and "Oklahoma" 1955. The picture quality has been quite a revelation to see on my 50 inch plasma. The DVD versions are no longer possible to watch.

[Nick_M]

I see lots of prints around town, some new, some old, some original. These so-called flaws that everybody now notices in HD (which is lower resolution than 35mm), were always present. Wires, matte paintings, cakey makeup, wigs, are clearly visible in 35mm, should you look for them when you go to the theater.

[wich2]

With the best, and especially, the most modern, prints (and digital sources) and projection equipment.

But trust me:

In the TV broadcast prints, under the normal color broadcast technology of the times, the original STAR TREK did not betray its roots like the Blus do. Ditto, such things like the wires in the original theatrical prints of things like the '50s WAR OF THE WORLDS.

Smart production people knew the characteristics of the presentation media of the times, and used them smartly. They did NOT want the artifice to be betrayed under the "glare" of the systems used now.

As with everything else, it's all about balance. You're not meant to see the makeup styles used in giant theaters like the Met, from three feet away. Which is, metaphorically, what happens sometimes today in these cases.

-Craig

[Mike Gebert]

HD (which is lower resolution than 35mm)

True, but there are lots of reasons why you might notice things at home that you wouldn't see in a theater, from the quality of the source material to how far you're sitting from the screen. Subjectively, my blu-ray of Safety Last seems much more detailed than the 35mm print I saw at The Music Box a decade ago, even if that's not strictly so, because I see more.

[topchap]

These so-called flaws that everybody now notices in HD (which is lower resolution than 35mm), were always present. Wires, matte paintings, cakey makeup, wigs, are clearly visible in 35mm, should you look for them when you go to the theater.

Not necessarily true. Sometimes the sources for digital reproduction/restorations are more detailed than anything ever seen in theaters. Even in DVD that has proven to be true. Chaplin's "City Lights" is a good example. Taken from either original camera negative (or lavender), the DVD revealed wires in the fight scene that were virtually invisible in any release prints available to the general public.

[Nick_M]

Virtually invisible is still visible. If you're seeing wires on a DVD, then those are pretty big wires, and you'd probably see them on VHS. Those original prints were made off the original negative, so they would've been visible back then, too, even if you were to say that the resolution of those release prints was as low as DVD.

[wich2]

A digital copy created from a low-generation master negative (as opposed to a multi-generational dupe one), sometimes even from the CAMERA negative, may indeed be closer to the original elements than a vintage release print was. As well as, it is probably more carefully produced as to lenses, lighting, etc.

Such digital copies in our homes today are less forgiving than the standard-issue, speed-duped theatrical prints of the original era. As well, as others have said we are generally viewing them at a much closer range.

[Great Hierophant]

The trouble with DVDs is that they were a medium designed for standard definition TVs. The horizontal resolution of a DVD, of 720 pixels (by 480 (NTSC) or 576 (PAL) lines), was quite superior to the horizontal resolution that could be resolved with a tube. Those CRT TVs rarely were larger than 36" and typically used the 4:3 aspect ratio.

Now we have 1080p and 2160p flat panels meausring 40", 50" 60" in size in our living rooms and DVDs are no longer a good match for these screens. The resolution of DVD needs to be scaled to the native resolutions of these screens and there is only so much you can do with the original digital sources. Scanning film at HD and UHD resolutions and transferring them to HD media allows you to retain so much more of the detail of the film. The end result is that you often get a much more watchable picture on your current TVs. I'm all for that, even if it can magnify the flaws in the original film materials.

When we talk about Star Trek (TOS), I agree that those episodes were intended to be transmitted over the air to be seen on standard resolution CRT TVs rarely larger than 25". Flaws captured on film, a closeup of a stunt double, seams in a makeup application, a crack in a prop could often be kept in the broadcast episode because it was unlikely they would be glaringly obvious to the viewers. Fortunately, TOS was shot entirely on film, so it can be given the HD treatment and the results are often impressive. Fast-forward 20 years later to TNG, they shot the live action on film but did the effects on SD video. They had to redo the effects for the remastered versions.

[Brent]

This is a funny thread. A lot of it sounds like the complaints about colorization of old films – a practice which has been effectively dead for a whole decade, by the way, so let's not go there. People: you have a choice! Nobody is forcing you to watch any of these films or television programmes in HD. Certainly, we have enough of a backlog of material available on SD (or lower) resolution home video formats that you can stick to those if you so wish.

A lot of the arguments claiming "There's too much detail and it's only happening now!" (or words to that effect) are fallacious too, for all sorts of reasons. To say the least, I've been regularly seeing undesirable image details onscreen all my life. That's occurred whether on DVD, BD or theatrical screenings of films both ancient and modern, on 35mm or DCP.

Films and television aren't perfect; they never have been nor ever will be. Whenever I see the joins, it seldom jolts me out the picture and certainly doesn't offend me the way it seems to do some here. As often as not, it simply gives me an even greater appreciation for the level of illusion that they are able to maintain.

Now, if you want to talk about material being transferred or screened in the wrong aspect ratio, then you'll really see my blood boil!

[wich2]

>Now, if you want to talk about material being transferred or screened in the wrong aspect ratio, then you'll really see my blood boil!<

Each to his own Shibboleth...

[Brent]

Actually, a film transfer that's been zoomed in, cropped or simply in the wrong AR compromises the work itself and artistic intent by any objective criteria. And once it's been done, that's usually it: everyone's stuck with it, whether they like it or not. Unlike the fact that no one's forcing HD, BDs, or anything else on anyone.

Basically, choice is what I really care about, for everybody.

[wich2]

>a film transfer that's been zoomed in, cropped or simply in the wrong AR compromises the work itself and artistic intent by any objective criteria.<

As does the revelation of artifice that the filmmakers had the artistic intent of hiding - under the conditions of the technology of their time - from their audience.

>colorization of old films – a practice which has been effectively dead for a whole decade<

And just as a point of order: though it has not become the all-devouring nightmare that some warned us it would, Colorization is not dead.

I.e., it has been recently used to contemporize vintage newsreel footage for documentaries; the more recent, much-better-than-Turner colorized versions of films such as HOLIDAY INN, BABES IN TOYLAND, and MIRACLE ON 34TH St. are still sold on DVD and in seen in Broadcast syndication, etc.

As well, it has been quietly used as a restoration tool for some vintage films and shows, w/o fanfare.

-Craig

[Brent]

Your first point is basically down to your personal opinion and preference. But whichever you prefer, you're free to choose the version you watch.

I didn't say colorization was dead. I said "effectively dead". That meant precisely allowing for the specific minor use examples you stated. The three films you cited were all colorized by Legend Films, again as I said, around a decade ago. Certainly, within the last seven or eight years only a handful of features have been colorized. Most of those are foreign language titles for their domestic markets. Effectively dead then.

[wich2]

>Your first point is basically down to your personal opinion and preference<

I disagree.

You claimed that "the wrong AR compromises the work itself and artistic intent by any objective criteria."

I'd bet that if we had George Pal here, he'd maintain that that "objective criteria" was broad enough to encompass not only the SIZE of image that he and his crew planned and worked for, but the CONTENT of that image. Therefore, his "artistic intent" was also that his Martian Machines not look like they were hanging from wires somewhere in the bowl of heaven.

-Craig