• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are classic movies on Blu-Ray enhanced?

G

gszx1337

Member
Now, I know that when a game is ported over to a new console (ie. Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection) the game is upscaled and has a filter slapped on it to enhance the picture quality. My question is, do classic movies (ie. Ghostbusters, First Blood, Alien, etc.) have any such enhancements, or are they just slapped onto a Blu-Ray?

Also, there's no need to welcome me to the forums, I made a new account instead of importing my last one since I had a stupid name for my previous account.

Thanks for reading,
~GSZX1337
 
It depends on the quality of the transfer. Some older movies are quality transfers and look awesome while some look like crap. The same can go for any recent movies as well. What kind of enhancements are you talking about though? Games are very different than movies. Old movies were recorded in much higher quality than what a DVD could produce if that's what you're asking.
 
What zerocool said. I've noticed this too, and its why I can tolerate upscaled DVD's on my 46-inch LCD. I've seen too many medocre Bluray movies that don't look much better than a well up-scaled DVD. There are certainly a good number of movies that Bluray seems wasted on due to the poor transfer or some other factor.
 
Film (35mm) is inherently better than 1080p (~4K). So, if the film is clean and the transfer is good, there is no enhancement needed. Less downconversion (BD vs DVD) from the same source (Film) should always mean a better picture. Then again, a film source could degrade over time or the same source may not even be used for the Blu-ray that was used for the DVD.
 
One of the best examples of botched transfer job is the original "Highlander"... Leaving aside the fact that it was shot on grainy '80s film stock, I don't think that film was ever properly cleaned and restored... if I remember correctly, the first couple of DVD editions were made from a VCD (!) master. Strangely enough, they gave it a THX certification... even the Blu-Ray, from what I've seen, continues to have numerous problems with grain, edge enhancement and uneven picture quality.
 
AnitaPeterson said:
One of the best examples of botched transfer job is the original "Highlander"... Leaving aside the fact that it was shot on grainy '80s film stock, I don't think that film was ever properly cleaned and restored... if I remember correctly, the first couple of DVD editions were made from a VCD (!) master. Strangely enough, they gave it a THX certification... even the Blu-Ray, from what I've seen, continues to have numerous problems with grain, edge enhancement and uneven picture quality.
Click to expand...

Two great examples of fantastic Blu-Ray transfers are James Bond's "Dr. No" and "The Wizard of Oz." Absolutely beautiful transfers.
 
AnitaPeterson said:
One of the best examples of botched transfer job is the original "Highlander"... Leaving aside the fact that it was shot on grainy '80s film stock, I don't think that film was ever properly cleaned and restored... if I remember correctly, the first couple of DVD editions were made from a VCD (!) master. Strangely enough, they gave it a THX certification... even the Blu-Ray, from what I've seen, continues to have numerous problems with grain, edge enhancement and uneven picture quality.
Click to expand...

I think that might be what the OP was asking. Are older movies, as you put it, "cleaned and restored" before they are put onto bluray?

And I think the answer is some are, some aren't. I'm not sure there is a general rule to know which are and aren't.
 
techs said:
I think that might be what the OP was asking. Are older movies, as you put it, "cleaned and restored" before they are put onto bluray?

And I think the answer is some are, some aren't. I'm not sure there is a general rule to know which are and aren't.
Click to expand...

There isn't. Blu-Ray review sites do help take the guesswork out of figuring out if it's worth getting the BR or DVD.
 
Age of the film is irrelevant. The sharpness/quality of the lenses and filmstock used, quality of the scan to digital, intended look, image processing, and other factors are what determine picture quality. There are crappy looking films from 2009 and fantastic looking films from 1940.
 
Last edited:
I have a theory that they take the actors, resurrect them and/or find them to put them in an aging machine, bring them back, and re-shoot the movie in HD.

Hey...it could happen.
 
Tristicus said:
I have a theory that they take the actors, resurrect them and/or find them to put them in an aging machine, bring them back, and re-shoot the movie in HD.

Hey...it could happen.
Click to expand...
That explains why Indy was so old in Crystal Skull.
 
Thanks for the help, guys. I was afraid that it'd be case-by-case, is there a site that lists which transfers suck and which ones don't?

zerocool84 said:
What kind of enhancements are you talking about though? Games are very different than movies.
Click to expand...
Of course I know games are very different from movies. 😛 I don't know about how movies get remastered or enhanced when they're transferred to different formats, but I knew both could use filters. For the enhancements, I was mainly thinking maybe the films would have filters on them to keep them from looking aliased (like Marvel vs. Capcom 2 for the X360/PS3 did).

AnitaPeterson said:
One of the best examples of botched transfer job is the original "Highlander"
Click to expand...

JackBurton said:
Two great examples of fantastic Blu-Ray transfers are James Bond's "Dr. No" and "The Wizard of Oz." Absolutely beautiful transfers.
Click to expand...

I'll check those out next time I rent movies.

AnitaPeterson said:
Strangely enough, they gave it a THX certification...
Click to expand...
The board was probably thinking "We have to certify Highlander, it's fucking Highlander!" 😉

oogabooga said:
There isn't. Blu-Ray review sites do help take the guesswork out of figuring out if it's worth getting the BR or DVD.
Click to expand...
Do the review sites make finding that information easy, or would I have to read through the review to find out?
 
AnitaPeterson said:
One of the best examples of botched transfer job is the original "Highlander"... Leaving aside the fact that it was shot on grainy '80s film stock, I don't think that film was ever properly cleaned and restored... if I remember correctly, the first couple of DVD editions were made from a VCD (!) master. Strangely enough, they gave it a THX certification... even the Blu-Ray, from what I've seen, continues to have numerous problems with grain, edge enhancement and uneven picture quality.
Click to expand...
Grain is not an "issue". If they used grainy film stock, then the resulting Blu-ray should be grainy as well.
 
gszx1337 said:
Of course I know games are very different from movies. 😛 I don't know about how movies get remastered or enhanced when they're transferred to different formats, but I knew both could use filters. For the enhancements, I was mainly thinking maybe the films would have filters on them to keep them from looking aliased (like Marvel vs. Capcom 2 for the X360/PS3 did).
Click to expand...

Things get aliased when they are put into a digital fomat. Film is has no aliasing from the start. Putting it on DVD will result in more issues with aliasing than it would with a higher resolution medium like Blu-ray. So no special filter is needed like there is for video games.
 
Analog film is actually very high resolution, so the answer to your question is a theoretical "Well, they CAN be". Its going to depend on a few factors. The most important factor being "did the company making the bluray disk have access to high quality, un-deteriorated original film/master" and also how much effort did they put in to making sure it was a quality transfer to bluray.
 
sxr7171 said:
Funny the quality of image seems to vary in inverse to the quality of movie.
Click to expand...
It's really a positive correlation of image quality to popularity. The studios will spend a fair bit more cash restoring older movies (eg, The Wizard of Oz) that they think will be popular (and thus sell a lot). They're not going to spend as much on older movies that, while critically acclaimed, are not going to garner huge sales.
 
erwos said:
It's really a positive correlation of image quality to popularity. The studios will spend a fair bit more cash restoring older movies (eg, The Wizard of Oz) that they think will be popular (and thus sell a lot). They're not going to spend as much on older movies that, while critically acclaimed, are not going to garner huge sales.
Click to expand...

Gladiator was a mess on Blu-ray.
 
zerocool84 said:
And what's really bad is that they'll release a good movie really quickly and not do a good transfer then a year or two later release a brand new platinum version with more features and better quality.
Click to expand...

Double-dipping FTW!

I though y'all know by now how the studios make their money.

Come on, 'fess up: how many editions of LOTR do you own? I have no less than three... (giggles)
 
I own zero editions of LOTR. By the time I was ready to buy the extended edition DVDs, Blu-Ray was out, and I just decided to spend my money on those.

There are already plans for a LOTR marathon at my place when the BR-D LOTR EEs come out!
 
erwos said:
I own zero editions of LOTR. By the time I was ready to buy the extended edition DVDs, Blu-Ray was out, and I just decided to spend my money on those.

There are already plans for a LOTR marathon at my place when the BR-D LOTR EEs come out!
Click to expand...

Same here 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top