What is the point of old movies on hd-dvd? [Text View]

yrly

12-22-07, 01:56 AM

I own The Sting, Robin Hood, Battle of the Bulge, Casablanca, The Dirty Dozen, Deliverance, The Shining, Blade Runner (at least that come to mind immediately), none of which are exactly modern movies all at least 25 years old (slightly beyond that Coming to America and Trading Spaces). Given the age of some of these films they look remarkable. I've seen many others on HD channels that were older and looked equally good, and ones that were on SD DVD that probably would translate very well (if the old SD DVD that was probably mastered off the remaster used when they made then Laserdisc looked good I'd bet it would look good in HD). From a technical standpoint film can still provide substantial video information, even if its old, really it is just a matter of how well preserved it is, how well it has been remastered, and how it was originally shot (you can shoot a modern film on crappy stock, or intentionally make it look grainy to give a certain desired appearance).

Again how it was done is pivotal in the final results.

Just a few things of mention-

Robin Hood looks fantastic, almost cartoonlike, they did a great restoration with it and despite its age it probably has never looked better.

The Sting, while the movie's setting will do little for HD in terms of 3D pop and such it has a beautiful colorful and filmlike appearance. I bought this title knowing the movie but not knowing what to expect when CompUSA was closing shortly after getting my player, I've watched it several times since, it still impresses me.

The Shining, it looks absolutely beautiful IMHO, I've watched it at least 8 times and will do it again.

Battle of the Bulge, looks surprisingly good for a movie of that era.

I'm watching Blade Runner right now in fact, it could have been filmed yesterday, it is what 25 years old now?

How old is too old? I think the limit is how well perserved the source material is and how well it was shot in the first place.

cavu

12-22-07, 02:09 AM

SD cannot capture all the resolution available in 35mm film.HD cannot capture all the resolution available in 35mm film.

There are around 20 million "quality" pixels in a top-quality 35mm shot - that's about 10x the resolution of 1080p.

evolver

12-22-07, 02:29 AM

never said it was a bad movie. It's a great movie. Just questioning why it got an hd-dvd transfer when it can't at all benefit from the capabilities of the format

:rolleyes:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews27/casablanca.htm

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=25296

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/casablanca.html

maverick0716

12-22-07, 02:43 AM

I'm not missing the point. The source material is the point. Is there anything about the source that would be rendered better in hd-dvd than sd dvd?

My eyes say nope

Rent it in SD then.......you'll see the difference right away.

Dreamwriter

12-22-07, 03:01 AM

Sheesh, so many people slamming the OP, ridiculing him and making sarcastic remarks, expecting him to know everything about this; only a couple people actually tried to help him. Realize, people, Joe 6 Pack thinks this way. They don't know any better. Worst thread ever...yes, but not because of the OP.

If you haven't figured it out, sjp777, 35mm film, regardless of age, has even more detail in it than 1080p HD, let alone standard DVD. If the movie studio didn't flub the remastering for HD, they HD-DVD version should look much sharper and have a lot more detail than the same movie on DVD. So yes, Casablanca won't take advantage of your widescreen TV, nor your surround speakers. But it *will* take advantage of the high resolution that HDTV and HD-DVD allow.

Now, that doesn't mean every movie on HD-DVD will look amazing, have that HD "pop" (though even movies from the 60's can have that) - but at least every movie *should* look better than DVD, and I for one want my movies to look as good as they possibly can.

Timothy Ramzyk

12-22-07, 03:50 AM

Gotta admit, threads like this are a little heartbreaking, HD is an excellent opportunity to see vintage films as close to 35mm as were ever likely to come, saying SD is "good enough" for old films is being ignorant to the artistry and detail that's just as present in a B/W academy-ratio film from the 30's as it is any Johnny Depp pirate adventure of today.

If your not able to appreciate the nuance of what HD adds to an excellent transfer like Casablanca, then sell it off to someone who will. I can assure you its not a wasted effort and many of us are chomping at the bit to see more of the same.

markrubin

12-22-07, 07:39 AM

markrubin

12-22-07, 07:43 AM

speaking of old material

I just got Roy Orbison BLACK&WHITENIGHT on HD DVD: this version has Dolby True HD 5.1 and it Rocks :)

MovieSwede

12-22-07, 08:01 AM

never said it was a bad movie. It's a great movie. Just questioning why it got an hd-dvd transfer when it can't at all benefit from the capabilities of the format

If the criteria is that the movie must take advantage of the capacity from the format. No 2,35:1 (2,37:1) movies should be released either since them doesnt take full advantage of the format either.

(2,37:1) 1920*810 = 1555200 pixels
(1,33:1) 1440*1080 = 1555200 pixels

So a 4:3 movie gives you as much information in HD as a 2,37:1 movie.

[H]RedDog

12-22-07, 08:56 AM

Its unfortunate. Because your right on one point missed. The sound quality of older films just doesnt get a huge boost for older movies on the new formats. Lucky for us though. Actual film was way ahead of its time. The res. on film is even higher than HD. So old movies can hold a large amount of detail that hasnt been seen in 50 or 60 years.

One of the things I enjoy about older movies is not just the movie itself but where is can take me. I cant go back to a time before I was born and watch robin hood in a one screen theater. But when I saw it at home for the first time on hd-dvd in mono. I was taken back to what it must have been like to see that in those times. And the quality of HD let me see it. Film grain, glowing color, brush strokes on the sets. No t.v. or computer. No divx, cd's, DVD, Mp3, downloads, digital artifacts, dlp, lcd, D65, ISF, HDMI, 18hz at <100db, no CGI. We probably see a better picture then they did back then on actual film........Its pretty awsome.

JBLsound4645

12-22-07, 09:13 AM

finally after over 4 months got my rebate discs. Casablanca was one of them.

Why did I need this on hd-dvd? 4:3 with black side bars, mono sound. I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matter

LOL You’ve, been milked! It looks good on region 2 DVD for me I doubt a blind man, will see the difference? :D

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Casablanca1-1.jpg

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Casablanca2-1.jpg

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Casablanca3-2.jpg

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Casablanca4-1.jpg

s2mikey

12-22-07, 09:13 AM

chili555

12-22-07, 09:44 AM

One man's trash is another man's treasure. Just ask the guy that married my ex-wife.

Twenty years from now, we will still admire Casablanca. Twenty years from now, very few of us will be admiring Jack Black's performance in King Kong, often mentioned as an example of a great HD transfer.

Do you watch HD movies for the HD or for the movie? The bling or the plot?

jones07

12-22-07, 09:49 AM

I can see his concern. The sound and the 4:3 aspect ratio kind of kills it for me as well. Nothing wrong with the movies themselves, some are classics no doubt. But, they are LAST on my list for titles that studios should be worrying about doing HD transfers for. Id rather see them spend their time and effort on titles that might take better advantage of the technology available.

And the market place has confirmed yours and the OP opinions. The sales numbers are out there for released classics in the HD format and they were beyond dismal. The market place has spoken and it is never wrong.

I don't think we will see many more classics released anytime soon.

I did enjoy Grand Prix (1966)-HDDVD, never saw this classic before. Can a 1966 film be called a classic?............:p

ilovenola2

12-22-07, 10:06 AM

No_U-Turn

12-22-07, 10:07 AM

LOL You’ve, been milked! It looks good on region 2 DVD for me I doubt a blind man, will see the difference? :D

Heh heh, "I was misinformed".... Great line from this awesome movie, good one! :D:D:D

OP, the HD DVD of Casablanca has so much more detail than the SD DVD (or the VHS you have mentioned in the first post :eek: ). Look at the backgrounds, when the camera focuses on them, and you will see how detailed they are. Ingrid Bergman is stunningly beautiful and you can even clearly notice the softening filters they have used when "shooting" her (which is explained during one of the audio commentaries).

Most film stock (even b&w) stores much more information than 1080p can. So our HD DVDs/Blu-rays are just an upgrade to SD DVD, but they are not even the end of the line.

Well worth the buy imo. I hope we will come to a point with HDM, that releasing many "older" films will be worthwhile for the stuidios. Just think of all the "film noir" classics..... *drools*

gstspyder

12-22-07, 10:09 AM

rent "One Six Right [HD DVD]" for more background on this great film.

rlindo

12-22-07, 10:10 AM

*shrugs* I have Casablanca on hd-dvd and it clearly looks better than the last DVD release. Don't know how someone can't see the difference but meh, to each their own.

ccotenj

12-22-07, 10:18 AM

And the market place has confirmed yours and the OP opinions. The sales numbers are out there for released classics in the HD format and they were beyond dismal. The market place has spoken and it is never wrong.

I don't think we will see many more classics released anytime soon.

I did enjoy Grand Prix (1966)-HDDVD, never saw this classic before. Can a 1966 film be called a classic?............:p

unfortunately, the classics that have been released haven't sold well... however, when you think about, darn little hdm has "sold well"...

yes, "grand prix" can be considered a classic... a wonderfully made film, with terrific racing sequences, multiple subplots with substantial character development and a GREAT presentation on hddvd...

editorial comment... this thread (like many before it), illustrates the difference between those who like hd for "eye popping" hdm, and those who like hd because it gives us a better presentation of movies that we like...

ccotenj

12-22-07, 10:22 AM

I'm not missing the point. The source material is the point. Is there anything about the source that would be rendered better in hd-dvd than sd dvd?

My eyes say nope

if anything, b&w films are great candidates for hdm, because hdm truly can bring out the details that the filmmaker had to work hard to get... b&w filmmaking was truly an art...

hdm isn't all about eye popping color...

JTYoung

12-22-07, 10:22 AM

Sounds to me like the OP is complaining because the movie is a 4:3 picture with mono sound and not judging the movie based on its previous releases.

mbw23air

12-22-07, 10:26 AM

And here I am wanting more older movies on HD DVD and blu ray and I see this thread. Yikes!! Some of the best movies I have watched on HD DVD and blu ray have been older films. Some movies don't benefit as much from an upgrade to HD and I hope that is what the op was trying to convey but some films are simply glorious in HD. I haven't seen Casablanca on HD DVD but I'm sure it is an improvement. I think some people's equipment\screen sizes also play a part to how much better they think it is to. So, he could be watching on a 32" 720p LCD tv so without all the facts its hard to judge what he is seeing.

Mike

liquidneba

12-22-07, 10:28 AM

I worked for Kodak (division was bought out a few months ago).

Anyway, you get more detail with black and white than with color. The grain is smaller too. More detail that 1080P can even bring out.

But I also understand the frustration of a 4:3 film, I own a Casablanca DVD.

You can probably look up Wikipedia for exact information but, I think this movie came out before television was widely in use, thus the 4:3 aspect ratio, eventually the movie studios when to the wider aspect ratios to differentiate themselves from TV. Movies shot before that time are stuck in 4:3 for eternity.

I remember at Kodak when IMAX first came out, I was like who makes their film stock? (We did, just 70mm, instead of 35mm). Big headsmacking time, anyway I digress....

Art Sonneborn

12-22-07, 10:30 AM

Older films transfered with care make enormous leaps in quality with HD regardless of AR. Many of us find that there simply aren't enough good recent releases to enjoy to make having a nice set up worth it. I agree also about going back (or just away).

Give me some more Bogarts:

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
The Big Sleep
Maltese Falcon
Key Largo

I'm guessing that the OP is no more than twenty something based on the attitude. This however, is going to be the problem with HDM. If the vast majority end up being in that age range we may be stuck with Crank,Ultraviolet,Nacho Libre and Stealth.

Art

Ovation

12-22-07, 10:32 AM

finally after over 4 months got my rebate discs. Casablanca was one of them.

Why did I need this on hd-dvd? 4:3 with black side bars, mono sound. I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matterThere is likely little or no benefit for sound, but for PQ, there certainly is a benefit. Is the benefit sufficiently significant for you? Apparently not. But that is a function of your expectations and your personal tastes. To state, as fact, that there is no improvement over SD DVD is technically wrong (the level of improvement vs your expectations is a point open to discuss--the existence of an improvement is not). Up to that point, one could be sympathetic to your position in a general sense: If the difference between SD DVD and HD DVD for this title is so (subjectively) small, is it worth the upgrade? The answer to that is for you to decide.

Where you lost much sympathy from me (and perhaps a lot of others) is when you state it is no better than VHS. That is simply ludicrous. If you were exaggerating to make a point, you went overboard. If you have never seen it on VHS, then you are supposing a level of quality for VHS that is non-existent.

As I've entered the world of HD (in the past five months I've acquired an HD front projector, an HD PVR and an HD DVD player), I've noticed three broad trends.

One--there are "serious enthusiasts", a subset of whom make hyperbolic claims, who see (or claim to see) dramatic improvements in all cases. It doesn't seem to matter what type of programming, it is always A LOT better in HD (whether broadcast or HDM). The subset usually follows that up with condescending remarks about other people's eyesight (while there can be a rational discussion about the effect of varying quality of eyesight on perception of HD quality, the remarks to which I refer are not especially designed to foster discussion).

Two--there are those who claim to see "little or no difference" for HDM (though far fewer, if any, make that claim for HD broadcast vs SD broadcast). The broadcast situation is easily explained--SD cable/sat is almost always far below its own potential whereas HD cable/sat, even if not at its potential, is at least significantly better than any SD cable/sat. The HDM situation is a bit trickier. There are certainly some cases where SD DVD is phenomenally well done and, as such, the HDM version has less room for improvement. I've seen this myself (I would rank the Lost SD DVDs as, at least with my projector's video processing, at 95% as good as HD--so I would be perfectly happy with the SD sets. In that case, I would not spend double the price for the Blu-ray version if the content is identical.). However, I've also seen some SD DVD material that is clearly improved when either broadcast in HD or on HDM. Is the improvement enough to warrant the cost and headaches of early adoption? That is for each individual to decide. In my case, it is yes. But I would not call someone blind or stupid if they chose not to do so at this time. I am wary of those who say there is NO improvement, rather than those who say the improvement is not sufficient to sway them. Too often, those who do not upgrade or those who are disappointed go the "no improvement" route and that is both disingenuous of them and unreasonably irritating to those who are happy for having upgraded. I'm fine with people who say "I don't think the improvement is worth it to me". I'm not fine with those who say "there's no improvement at all".

Three--there seems to be a misconception about what HDM is supposed to present to viewers. Largely because of misinformation (both resulting from innocent ignorance and from deliberately manipulative marketing), it seems the majority of people expect HDM versions of movies to appear like live HD broadcasts (sports, for example). They expect all naturally occurring film grain to be gone and for razor-like sharpness to predominate. Some go so far as to express annoyance at film directors who deliberately chose (or choose today) to use soft-focus shots, grainy film stock and wider than 1.85:1 ratios and so on, for artistic purposes because each of those choices makes the image "less HD-like" in terms of what they expect. There is little to be done about this except patient, grassroots education. Sadly, the economic model of the industry doesn't work that way so edge enhancement and hard coded noise reduction are placed even into HDM (rather than encouraging people to use those features in their players if they wish to avoid that which those who want to see the film as it was want to see).

In the end, if people could generally come to understand that HDM should simply bring us closer to the original than previous formats were capable of doing rather than expecting HDM to transform the original into something it was never meant to be, then a lot of disappointment would disappear. It's really all about managing expectations.

Art Sonneborn

12-22-07, 10:43 AM

editorial comment... this thread (like many before it), illustrates the difference between those who like hd for "eye popping" hdm, and those who like hd because it gives us a better presentation of movies that we like...

Yep, and you can only demo so long, I should know.Then you get down to the real reason you installed a nice system. For me, it is the most basic reason, to get away. Just like a good book, a good film presentation can have unbelievable ability to take one away from the day to day.

We can only hope that as the format matures so will the buyer base.

Art

ccotenj

12-22-07, 10:53 AM

Yep, and you can only demo so long, I should know.Then you get down to the real reason you installed a nice system. For me, it is the most basic reason, to get away. Just like a good book, a good film presentation can have unbelievable ability to take one away from the day to day.

We can only hope that as the format matures so will the buyer base.

Art

i couldn't agree more art... even though my setup pales in comparison to yours, you hit the nail right on the head...

enjoy the movies. that's what it's all about.

Timothy Ramzyk

12-22-07, 11:31 AM

I can see his concern. The sound and the 4:3 aspect ratio kind of kills it for me as well. Nothing wrong with the movies themselves, some are classics no doubt. But, they are LAST on my list for titles that studios should be worrying about doing HD transfers for. Id rather see them spend their time and effort on titles that might take better advantage of the technology available.

Aaaaaahhhhh kill me now! :eek: Cinema is roughly just over a 100 years old and better than 50% of it is 4:3, are we really going to say it's OK to dismiss the first fifty years of filmaking on HD because it doesn't fill the TV??? This is like reverse letterbox prejudice, only I'm hearing it in an arena where I don't expect to.

Well, lets kiss-off GONE WITH THE WIND, CITIZEN KANE, KING KONG, SNOW WHITE, THE WIZARD OF OZ, PINOCCHIO, METROPOLIS, NOTORIOUS, SCARFACE, THE RED SHOES, GRAPES OF WRATH just for openers.

Are the people here who see the half-dozen 4:3 titles or two B/W as somehow crowding out their choices for HDM, when they account for about 1% of whats out there? C'mon!

zaphod7501

12-22-07, 11:31 AM

Just passing through (I'm more of a hardware/PC guy but I'm thinking about an HD-DVD) but the OP didn't mention his display method. He could be using a display that lacks full HD capabilities/connections or he's sitting back at 6 or 8 times the screen height (like a lot of people) and he truly can't see the difference.

yellowcanary73

12-22-07, 11:43 AM

Art Sonneborn

12-22-07, 11:47 AM

Aaaaaahhhhh kill me now! :eek: Cinema is roughly just over a 100 years old and better than 50% of it is 4:3, are we really going to say it's OK to dismiss the first fifty years of filmaking on HD because it doesn't fill the TV??? This is like reverse letterbox prejudice, only I'm hearing it in an arena where I don't expect to.

Well, lets kiss-off GONE WITH THE WIND, CITIZEN KANE, KING KONG, SNOW WHITE, THE WIZARD OF OZ, PINOCCHIO, METROPOLIS, NOTORIOUS, SCARFACE, THE RED SHOES, GRAPES OF WRATH just for openers.

Are the people here who see the half-dozen 4:3 titles or two B/W as somehow crowding out their choices for HDM, when they account for about 1% of whats out there? C'mon!

Yes, very scary I think. When HDM was being talked about I didn't see this coming at all. I expected that the titles would be similar to those released in DVD ten years ago as things progressed. It would be worse than tragic if all we get is eye candy that gives folks who like tier threads a thrill but not much else.

I've said repeatedly that the demographics of HDM buyers is very very different than that DVD experienced.

Timothy Ramzyk

12-22-07, 11:56 AM

Yes, very scary I think. When HDM was being talked about I didn't see this coming at all. I expected that the titles would be similar to those released in DVD ten years ago as things progressed. It would be worse than tragic if all we get is eye candy that gives folks who like tier threads a thrill but not much else.

I've said repeatedly that the demographics of HDM buyers is very very different than that DVD experienced.

So far I, sadly, I have to agree. I expected the Criterion-crowd to have a place at the table.:(

Hopefully, this is a growing pain.

Malcolm_B

12-22-07, 11:59 AM

Casablanca looks absolutely fantastic on HD DVD! But I could probably watch Casablanca projected onto a freaking bedsheet and still be taken away by the acting, the writing, the directing. It's the movie that counts. HDM is only icing on a delicious cake!

rdjam

12-22-07, 12:05 PM

I can't believe that anyone would question for a second the benefit of transfering older films to HD.

Unless someone would always want to watch classics like Blade Runner on VHS or DVD???

What would be the point of having HD at all if one could only watch one's favourite films in Low Def?

Look at some of the amazing films that have come to HD already, and have demonstrated an incredible improvment over Low Def SD: Blade Runner, Grand Prix, Casablanca, and more.

If you don't want HD, then perhaps the SD section of the forum would be the best place?

Rocket 57

12-22-07, 12:10 PM

Yes, very scary I think. When HDM was being talked about I didn't see this coming at all. I expected that the titles would be similar to those released in DVD ten years ago as things progressed. It would be worse than tragic if all we get is eye candy that gives folks who like tier threads a thrill but not much else.

I've said repeatedly that the demographics of HDM buyers is very very different than that DVD experienced.

Iagree with that statement completely the worst thing to happen was to have the gamer culture brought into this,thus we end up with the smackdown forums and my format is better than yours ad nauseum instead of just enjoying the films .

sharkshark

12-22-07, 12:17 PM

...does UNDERWORLD count as an old move, cuz it's FREAKIN' AWESOME!

(*cough*/*gag*)

As many were testing Fast and the Furious and Crank as their HDM of choice, my first two discs were Goodfellas and Unforgiven. If =films= looked better, then there was future for me buying HighDef.

Thousands of dollars spent in the last year and a half testifies to this fact....

sharkshark

12-22-07, 12:20 PM

ps., since we're pushing buttons:

What's the point of Black and White movies on HDM. I mean, CUMMON! I bought a COLOUR TV, and want to use all it's colours!

I watched that stupid Aviator film and at the beginning the colours were all stupid and stuff, I had to crank my Vivid settings up even higher!

Forget those stupid black bars, give me the colour I paid for when I bought my TV!

prof55

12-22-07, 12:38 PM

jones07

12-22-07, 12:43 PM

I've said repeatedly that the demographics of HDM buyers is very very different than that DVD experienced.

In which way are they different?

Riblet

12-22-07, 12:48 PM

I would like to see all 28,000 or so movies to be released in HDDVD (and/or Bluray). Every one of them should benefit from better resolution, better color, state-of-the-art remastering techniques, and better audio (for many). I am one of those people who want everything to be at the highest affordable level possible. When the 4k projectors, format, media, etc. become consumer available I want every movie to be redone again. :)

skibum5000

12-22-07, 12:49 PM

finally after over 4 months got my rebate discs. Casablanca was one of them.

Why did I need this on hd-dvd? 4:3 with black side bars, mono sound. I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matter

for sound you may be correct for many of the older titles (although it depends upon your definiton of older and also what is available to go back and dig up, if you don't go too, too far back sometimes you can get sound that is worth at least DVD).

for picture quality you are almost completely off-base.
some titles that have decayed a lot and or were shot on really poor stock perhaps DVD is good enough.
but many, if certainly by any means not all, of those older titles not only exceed DVD resolution but even exceed HD DVD and blu-ray resolution (occasionally by a lot)!
once you back past a certain point it will be pretty much 4:3 though.

Arthur Hancock

12-22-07, 01:14 PM

I thought that the reason so many "forgettable" titles (with exceptions!) had been released to date was because of the format war (they had to release SOMETHING!). Once the war is over and the dust settles they can start to release from their A-list of classics. "Gone With the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz" comes to mind. There's an uneducated and wary buying public out there and this could be the reason that sales of "classics" are low. A lot of people want the eye candy stuff right now. Once the public really sees the difference that hi def makes to the great films of old they'll demand nothing less. The difference HD-DVD makes to the PQ on my 106" screen is staggering--it clearly demonstrates that the weak link in the chain was the SD media and not my PJ. "Casablanca" is one of the few HD-DVD discs I own...glorious!

Adam_ME

12-22-07, 01:33 PM

What's the point of old movies on HD-DVD/Blu-ray? Hell, that's my favorite part of buying into the HD formats. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy modern popcorn movies just as much as the next person(well, at least the good ones like Batman Begins and Casino Royale).

But it's experiencing classics like Casablanca, 2001, The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Shining, and Blade Runner that really gets me geeked about the possibilities of HD.

All of the movies I just mentioned look(and in some cases sound) noticeably better than their SD-DVD counterparts. If you disagree, I'd get your home theater equipment checked. If you just prefer more modern films that use widescreen aspect ratios and surround sound, that's understandable. You represent a good chunk of the moviegoing public. Which is why Sony has so far released only one pre-1990 film on Blu-ray(that being Close Encounters).

Art Sonneborn

12-22-07, 01:57 PM

I'm not missing the point. The source material is the point. Is there anything about the source that would be rendered better in hd-dvd than sd dvd?

My eyes say nope

OK I'll reword it.. This is just simply false, even if your eyes say nope.

I used Casablanca on HDDVD at my home theater meet just because of it's beautiful transfer.

Art

oliverjg

12-22-07, 02:05 PM

imo movies are art and should be viewed in the historical context they were created in.

Casablanca was a blind buy, must have title for me on hd. ditto forbidden planet, blade runner....

when somebody says something like ... why bother with old movies... it reminds me of a similar statement about old cars.

why bother restoring that old corvette? you can get a new one for less and the new one will look better and perform better by all modern standards. a new coat of paint won't turn the old 'vette into a new one.

bviss

12-22-07, 02:07 PM

You can probably look up Wikipedia for exact information but, I think this movie came out before television was widely in use, thus the 4:3 aspect ratio, eventually the movie studios when to the wider aspect ratios to differentiate themselves from TV. Movies shot before that time are stuck in 4:3 for eternity.

Maybe would should get High Definition 100 inch 4:3 TVs and put them side by side in the home theater so we can watch all pre 1950 movies in all their glory.:D Or we could use electrical tape on the left and right sides of the screen for old movies.:rolleyes:

If the vast majority end up being in that age range we may be stuck with Crank,Ultraviolet,Nacho Libre and Stealth.

Art

LMAO:D

Art Sonneborn

12-22-07, 02:08 PM

Big Brad

12-22-07, 02:21 PM

I really enjoy reading this thread (minus the bad parts/insults). It gives me more things to talk about with people who are thinking of entering the "war zone" and are more interested in classic movies.

I can relate to the original poster because I've been ridiculed in the past, both on forums and in reality. No, it's not over the same subject, more so "720p is not real HD" (I have a 720p display). People often wondered why I bothered to invest in Bluray and HD-DVD when my display was not capable of showing a difference at all from DVD (their words, not mine). Having a higher resolution source will, in most cases, yield a better picture when scaled down to the displays resolution. It usually only took people a few seconds to realize this when I fired up an HD movie on the good 'ol "720p only" projector. :D The word speechless comes to mind.

I think the bottom line here is to realize that film yields a much higher resolution than 1920x1080 (1080p). The closer our media can get to the original native resolution, the more likely we are to see a picture that is closer to what was originally intended, both in terms of resolution and director's intent.

-Brad

b.greenway

12-22-07, 02:23 PM

MrMcGoo

12-22-07, 02:25 PM

I covet and buy most of the classics and wish that more of them were available. However, their mono sound distracts me during the movie in many cases. If the mono sound isn't helping immerse me in the film, I set my processor to "7 channel stereo" and enjoy the sound track along with the movie.

Purists may not appreciate the sound in 7 channel stereo, but I do. Most folks with a good processor can enjoy the mono sound tracks in this manner. If you do not like mono, it costs nothing to try it but a few minutes of time. The music is frequently of excellent quality on the classics. Casablanca and Robin Hood have great sound, even by modern standards.

Bill

markrubin

12-22-07, 02:27 PM

speaking of old material

I just got Roy Orbison BLACK&WHITENIGHT on HD DVD: this version has Dolby True HD 5.1 and it Rocks :)

^^^

Art Sonneborn

12-22-07, 02:31 PM

In which way are they different?

My opinion ,based on the comments on the forum, is that the buyers are on average much younger.

Art

b.greenway

12-22-07, 02:31 PM

I wish we could go back to a time where "enjoy" hadn't replaced listen/hear and or see/watch yet and do something to avert it; but thats another story altogether.

Art Sonneborn

12-22-07, 02:33 PM

cnikirk

12-22-07, 02:57 PM

The few "old" titles that have been released on HD DVD look fantastic in my opinion.

I'm not sure why people can't be happy with both the eye popping newer releases(if that is what you like) and the classics??

angelo913

12-22-07, 03:02 PM

finally after over 4 months got my rebate discs. Casablanca was one of them.

Why did I need this on hd-dvd? 4:3 with black side bars, mono sound. I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matter

WOW!!!
I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matter

Any movie on film will benefit from HD over any DVD and without a doubt VHS! First you are getting the BEST Master from the original Film in both Picture and Audio transfer on HD. Now to see and hear the difference to do need the a good HT system. Sure if you have a 24" CRT with TV mono speaker you will not see or hear the difference from VHS.

These type of posts don't make sense on the AVS Forums. :confused:

...Angelo

JBLsound4645

12-22-07, 03:03 PM

The last time I played Casablanca was around summertime this year. the sound is perfect in monaural it can be made to sound quite big, and you don’t really need anymore reverberation in the room when the bombs are dropping at Paris, in the background.

I have to see how it sounds though the DCX2496 in monaural and THX via JBL! This played once at the Empire Leicester square back in the 1990’s? Never saw it there but I know it would have sound awesome on one JBL loudspeaker in the auditorium, JBL 4675-A THX!

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Casablancaplayit1.jpg

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Casablancaplayit2.jpg

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Casablancaplayit3.jpg

You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

And when two lovers woo
They still say, "I love you."
On that you can rely
No matter what the future brings
As time goes by.

Timothy Ramzyk

12-22-07, 03:08 PM

Given the OPs response to CASABLANCA, I guess I'm not sure why they even selected it as a freebie? It's looks and sounds great so what else was expected?

I also don't get the notion that the pittance of classic 4:3, B/W, or mono films out there in anyway is hindrance to those who don't buy such films. I Highly doubt Warner was thinking "Hmm, Batman or Casablanca lets go with Casablanca."

NMJack

12-22-07, 03:11 PM

Why did I need this on hd-dvd? 4:3 with black side bars, mono sound. I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matter

Just use your display's stretch setting to get rid of those pesky bars and Casablanca will look even better than the original! :eek:

Kidding folks..... Casablanca is one of those rare movies that almost demands that we have the absolute best transfer available, even if it takes marginal benefit from the audio capabilities of the new HD formats.

Milt99

12-22-07, 03:17 PM

Many posts deleted and infractions issued. This thread is a great opportunity to educate folks, yet an astonishing number of members instead chose to ridicule and insult the OP.

You may not realize it, but there are many lurkers and unregistered guests who read this Forum. I for one would like them to have a positive experience here, for the betterment of home theater and HD.

Please confine your comments to the subject at hand, be nice, and take advantage of the opportunity.

Garry
AVS Moderator
I just found this thread so I didn't see the "insulting" posts.
I get the "just shoot me now" feeling when I read these posts.
Starting with the thread title and subsequent posts, the OP is clearly clueless about even basic film facts on several levels.

For the most part, this is a forum of film enthusiasts, or it should be, imo.
It's not hard to see why so many take great exception to such statements.
Personally, if you can't appreciate the difference HDM has made for "old" movies why the hell did you waste your money in the first place?

Jgatie

12-22-07, 03:22 PM

I'm not missing the point. The source material is the point. Is there anything about the source that would be rendered better in hd-dvd than sd dvd?

My eyes say nope

The fact that it was restored to an awesome 2K scan (higher than HD) and the original black and white master had even more resolution than that says it most certainly can be better in HD. Film, especially the B&W master they used for Casablanca, has a higher resolution capability than HDM.

Aspect ratio shouldn't even be discussed in this context, BTW.

Jgatie

12-22-07, 03:32 PM

Tom Monahan

12-22-07, 03:34 PM

ss9001

12-22-07, 03:45 PM

...Give me some more Bogarts:

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
The Big Sleep
Maltese Falcon
Key Largo

I'm guessing that the OP is no more than twenty something based on the attitude. This however, is going to be the problem with HDM. If the vast majority end up being in that age range we may be stuck with Crank,Ultraviolet,Nacho Libre and Stealth.Art

Maltese Falcon was supposed to be released last yr. Still waiting. Art, all of the Bogie movies you listed would be worthwhile for HD treatment, but MF is THE one I'm waiting for to sit next to Casablanca in my rack :D

One of the best detective noir stories done. I never tire of watching it; true classic. Even younger gen's should find something in there if not just to see Bogie at his wisecracking best.

Sidenote: I bought Crank based on all th eye candy reviews, and finally watched it this summer. Realizing everyone has different tastes, but I saw absolutely no point to the movie or redeeming value for its existence. And I love gritty crime-gangster movies & lots of action. Recently UV was on one of the HD cable channels and I tried to watch it twice and fell asleep twice. At least this time I saved myself $20 on the BD ;)

Now I did like Underworld. Something about Kate & leather, I guess :)

Casablanca in B&W and in Hi-def was stunning. All the shadows, details, contrast make it an excellent choice for HD. Mono sound not good enough? Use 2 channels or a DSP mode, like MrMcGoo suggested.

spike jones

12-22-07, 04:10 PM

All good choices for Bogart movies but you left out my favorite ...
To Have and Have Not, with the debut of the sizzling Lauren Bacall.

Say, was you ever bit by a dead bee?

JBLsound4645

12-22-07, 04:13 PM

Just use your display's stretch setting to get rid of those pesky bars and Casablanca will look even better than the original! :eek:

Kidding folks..... Casablanca is one of those rare movies that almost demands that we have the absolute best transfer available, even if it takes marginal benefit from the audio capabilities of the new HD formats.

Between the audio or, (language tracks) on the region 2 DVD, there’s considerable noticeable differences. I think the version I have has been remix, because you can hear the difference when playing back the same scene and switching (language tracks) (sound effects) are different.

westgate

12-22-07, 04:16 PM

Maybe would should get High Definition 100 inch 4:3 TVs and put them side by side in the home theater so we can watch all pre 1950 movies in all their glory.:D Or we could use electrical tape on the left and right sides of the screen for old movies.:rolleyes:

LMAO:D

if we're gonna have dedicated a/r based hd tvs, i want a 2.35x1 a/r hd tv/pj with auto masking abilities; nothing else will suffice!:eek::D

JBLsound4645

12-22-07, 04:22 PM

Maltese Falcon was supposed to be released last yr. Still waiting. Art, all of the Bogie movies you listed would be worthwhile for HD treatment, but MF is THE one I'm waiting for to sit next to Casablanca in my rack :D

One of the best detective noir stories done. I never tire of watching it; true classic. Even younger gen's should find something in there if not just to see Bogie at his wisecracking best.

Sidenote: I bought Crank based on all th eye candy reviews, and finally watched it this summer. Realizing everyone has different tastes, but I saw absolutely no point to the movie or redeeming value for its existence. And I love gritty crime-gangster movies & lots of action. Recently UV was on one of the HD cable channels and I tried to watch it twice and fell asleep twice. At least this time I saved myself $20 on the BD ;)

Now I did like Underworld. Something about Kate & leather, I guess :)

Casablanca in B&W and in Hi-def was stunning. All the shadows, details, contrast make it an excellent choice for HD. Mono sound not good enough? Use 2 channels or a DSP mode, like MrMcGoo suggested.

What are you smoking? :D You don’t what the Dolby digital decoder playing two monaural channels what’s the use in that. The region 2 DVD version is encoded in mono and displays in mono oh I like that very much. But pushing a few buttons on my home cinema if I have a film that is mono and is appearing on two channels (left and right) I can ether press the sound mode on the Kenwood KRF-X9050D and have the sound coming from the correct location.

Or I can press the button on the Yamaha DSR-70 that is patched in-line with the outputs left and right fronts and send the mono signal to the correct location.

And I can add reverberation echo to the mix though a different Yamaha DSP-100 that is used on the centre channel for experiments, its mostly in (by pass mode) but its there just in case I want to add some fun to the film. I tried it last summertime and it was great, sounded like Casablanca was in a large cinema.:p

akbled

12-22-07, 04:23 PM

My opinion ,based on the comments on the forum, is that the buyers are on average much younger.

Art

Well I may be an exception, I am 24 and can honestly say that I really could have cared less for some of these older films before I got into HD DVD. Then my curiosity as to how good they could really make these old films look in HD is what has led me to appreciate classics like Casablanca, Robin Hood, and Forbidden Planet. To me it is about discovering something new from something old. Now I would much rather purchase remastered classics then most of the mindless dribble new releases.:D

JBLsound4645

12-22-07, 04:27 PM

westgate

12-22-07, 04:31 PM

[QUOTE-Older films transfered with care make enormous leaps in quality with HD regardless of AR. Many of us find that there simply aren't enough good recent releases to enjoy to make having a nice set up worth it. I agree also about going back (or just away).

Give me some more Bogarts:

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
The Big Sleep
Maltese Falcon
Key Largo

I'm guessing that the OP is no more than twenty something based on the attitude. This however, is going to be the problem with HDM. If the vast majority end up being in that age range we may be stuck with Crank,Ultraviolet,Nacho Libre and Stealth.

Art[/QUOTE]

u use the term 'transferred with care'; i sometimes wonder how much care is put into some of the hd (or even sd) transfers we get as end users.:confused:

i guess im saying i wish there was a way for consumers to have some measure of the differences in pq and aq between the original film (if it hasnt been seen for a long while) and the end product. then folks might know if they're getting what they have paid their good $ 4.:)

porsche951

12-22-07, 04:34 PM

Classic movies rule !

rdclark

12-22-07, 04:35 PM

What are you robbing HD-DVD stores:D where do you get the money to buy a HD-DVD player and disc, these things cost an arm and leg. I’m 40 years old and I can’t afford HD-DVD.:(

Players are cheap. Discs can be rented. Even in England, I'm sure. Don't be a Luddite, mate!

stevenjw

12-22-07, 04:36 PM

Just use your display's stretch setting to get rid of those pesky bars and Casablanca will look even better than the original! :eek:

Kidding folks..... Casablanca is one of those rare movies that almost demands that we have the absolute best transfer available, even if it takes marginal benefit from the audio capabilities of the new HD formats.

Exactly. Casablanca on HD is an upgrade over DVD. Maybe not leaps and bounds, but an upgrade with all the extras. If you've never bought it on DVD, you'd certainly want it on HD. If you have it, then it's a choice left up to the consumer. If you got it for free, how can you bitch.

As for classics, Forbidden Planet and Mutiny on the Bounty look fantastic and clearly deserve the HD treatment. I'll bet that the Wizard of Oz will be an upgrade, among others. Bring on more HD, including the classics.

ilovenola2

12-22-07, 04:39 PM

Well I may be an exception, I am 24 and can honestly say that I really could have cared less for some of these older films before I got into HD DVD. Then my curiosity as to how good they could really make these old films look in HD is what has led me to appreciate classics like Casablanca, Robin Hood, and Forbidden Planet. To me it is about discovering something new from something old. Now I would much rather purchase remastered classics then most of the mindless dribble new releases.:D
What a lucky guy you are-- to have such an open, discovering mind! There's plenty more. Enjoy discovering it. I've got 40 years on you and I'm still doing the same thing.

And I went purple recently!

westgate

12-22-07, 04:44 PM

[QUOTE= The fact that it was restored to an awesome 2K scan (higher than HD) and the original black and white master had even more resolution than that says it most certainly can be better in HD. Film, especially the B&W master they used for Casablanca, has a higher resolution capability than HDM.

Aspect ratio shouldn't even be discussed in this context, BTW.[/QUOTE]

what are the w x h pixel #s for a '2k' scan. and how is it 'higher than hd' ? :) i always thought 1920x1080 (the much 'ballyhooed' '1080p or i') was considered to be '2k' (hd, as is also 1280x720) and 4k was (is) 4096x2160.:)

im not picking, just wanna know.

edit-grass valley 'spirit' 2k scanner...to 10 bit 2048x1556; so i guess there are no set pixel #s if it says ...(up)to 2048x1556 which would be the max?

Zoo

12-22-07, 05:02 PM

Call me weird but I am looking forward to getting into HDM for the classics and not the newer stuff. Of course there is always new/newer movies coming out that I enjoy.

It's just that movies used to be so much more of an art form in the "olden" days. I tned to find the indie and foreign movies more story focussed than many of today's "CGIfests". There is a whole back catalogue of classics that I am frothing at the mouth for. I am very hopeful that HDM gets to the mainstream level so that the studios won't be afraid to give many classics the 4k master and HDM treatment. I'm sure the Wizard of Oz, all the bonds, The Big Sleep etc will find their way to HDM. What about Boomtown and other pre 1950s movies? No way the more "niche" classics will get the treatment they deserve without a large marketplace to hedge the studios bets.

Anyways sorry for being OT. As you can see by my sig I am still on the sidelines. Oddly enough I try to hunt out as many older movies on my HD movies channels as possible. Lots of cool older stuff already has an HD master. Hey Fox! Where is Cleopatra on Blu-Ray? There already is an HD master for this film. Let's see Richard Burton, Rex Harrison, Mr. McDowell, and Liz in their full glory. Even on SD DVD the film looks great!:)

westgate

12-22-07, 05:03 PM

Well I may be an exception, I am 24 and can honestly say that I really could have cared less for some of these older films before I got into HD DVD. Then my curiosity as to how good they could really make these old films look in HD is what has led me to appreciate classics like Casablanca, Robin Hood, and Forbidden Planet. To me it is about discovering something new from something old. Now I would much rather purchase remastered classics then most of the mindless dribble new releases.:D
----------------------------
right on!

the most recent hd movie i can remember details from is 'deja vu' (d. washington); all the other recent ones ive seen have just faded away within 2 days or so.:eek:

otherwise its the classics that i remember the most (and i havent even seen most of them, 'cept for casablanca and a few others.):D

ss9001

12-22-07, 05:33 PM

akbled gives us hope! Great that u have an open mind & enjoy discovering some old along with the new. I enjoy new ones, too, and have watched movies that were totally unknown to me just to get hi-def content and this has been wonderful entertainment for my wife & I. Glad it can work both ways. :D

I hope you continue since there are many more good ones out there. With people like u buying them along with some of us older farts, studios will have incentive to release more content and that's good for everybody. They want the sales & profits and we want the content.

JBLsound4645

12-22-07, 05:38 PM

Players are cheap. Discs can be rented. Even in England, I'm sure. Don't be a Luddite, mate!

I don’t like renting DVD the only time I do is to see if I would “really, really like it” yes and then I’ll buy. HD-DVD players in the UK are not cheap some greedy gits still want £800.00 pounds for them, hardly cheap. :D

When I start seeing HD-DVD players at £400.00 or under I might show some interest, but not before Bluray DIES HARD then FOX will be forced to go HD-DVD yippy!

cavu

12-22-07, 05:42 PM

See this article (http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_digital_cinemas_special/) for details of 2K & 4K scans, etc.
PS. I hate editting on my PDA :(

LazerViking

12-22-07, 05:47 PM

Well I may be an exception, I am 24 and can honestly say that I really could have cared less for some of these older films before I got into HD DVD. Then my curiosity as to how good they could really make these old films look in HD is what has led me to appreciate classics like Casablanca, Robin Hood, and Forbidden Planet. To me it is about discovering something new from something old. Now I would much rather purchase remastered classics then most of the mindless dribble new releases.:D

I'm with you, I'm 21 and I'd much rather purchase honest revivals of a classic film with weight than another crystal-clear presentation of teen vampires fighting teen werewolves who also street race each other for pink slips or whatever trite crap that over populates the HDM world. I'd imagine most younger early-adopters are in it for the love of movies, not simply because they want eye-candy since its typically harder to round up funds for such indulgences than older patrons.

akbled

12-22-07, 06:47 PM

I'm with you, I'm 21 and I'd much rather purchase honest revivals of a classic film with weight than another crystal-clear presentation of teen vampires fighting teen werewolves who also street race each other for pink slips or whatever trite crap that over populates the HDM world. I'd imagine most younger early-adopters are in it for the love of movies, not simply because they want eye-candy since its typically harder to round up funds for such indulgences than older patrons.

For sure I'm definitely in it for the love of movies. One of the things I appreciate most is discovering these old actors and actresses and seeing them as they were and understanding why they were of the celebrity they were. Seeing how beautiful some of these people really were as their fans saw them in theaters during their time. Perfect example is "Viva Las Vegas" I would have never watched that before, I got it because my mom loves it. Watching that one, and it does look AMAZING, I can see why Elvis was the heart-throb he was before he got old and disgusting.:p

5150zx

12-22-07, 07:27 PM

finally after over 4 months got my rebate discs. Casablanca was one of them.

Why did I need this on hd-dvd? 4:3 with black side bars, mono sound. I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matter

Why did they put The Fast and the Furious on HD DVD? A pretty horrible movie, IMNSHO, that looks very nice in HD. Casablanca, is one of the greatest ever, and it now looks better than it's ever looked for home viewing.

You just need to keep in mind that people here are trying to get the 'best' viewing experience they can, whether it be Casablanca or TFATF.

prof55

12-22-07, 07:53 PM

I just found this thread so I didn't see the "insulting" posts.
I get the "just shoot me now" feeling when I read these posts.
Starting with the thread title and subsequent posts, the OP is clearly clueless about even basic film facts on several levels.

For the most part, this is a forum of film enthusiasts, or it should be, imo.
It's not hard to see why so many take great exception to such statements.
Personally, if you can't appreciate the difference HDM has made for "old" movies why the hell did you waste your money in the first place?

Clueless or not, I believe the OP poses a question that is on the minds of many potential HD buyers. And though this Forum may have a large percentage of enthusiasts who already know the answer, it benefits everyone if these enthusiasts take the time to legitimately answer the question, as opposed to flaming those they deem ignorant. We were all there once...

Garry

markrubin

12-22-07, 08:05 PM

^^^

Art Sonneborn

12-22-07, 09:43 PM

BIG ED

12-22-07, 09:47 PM

What is the point of old movies on hd-dvd?
To show how ugly & bad, new movies are.

wallijonn

12-22-07, 10:14 PM

finally after over 4 months got my rebate discs. Casablanca was one of them.

Why did I need this on hd-dvd? 4:3 with black side bars, mono sound. I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matter

I will gladly trade you for that Casablanca HD. :D

Personally I would love to see more oldies on HD & BD, provided that they have been remastered and restored. Now whether you think HD is worth a $5 premium over DVD (same film) is a different matter. I've balked at paying $19.99 for "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" but I'd definitely pick it up at that price on HD; I'd even pay $24.99 for it on HD. I'd kill for Ida Lupino films on HD. [I'd rather see a Deanna Durbin, Ida Lupino, Sandra Dee, Susan Hayward or Doris Day film anyday.]

Some oldies can't even be found on DVD. I've been waiting forever for "I'd Rather Be Rich" with Sandra Dee, (a remake of Deanna Durbin's "It Started With Eve") for example. Ever see "Sex And The Single Girl" on DVD? How about "A Ticklish Affair"? I love movies from the late 50s and early 60s (which encompases the foundations of Science Fiction). I'd love a 16x9 "War of the Worlds," and "Earth vs. The Flying Saucers".

If you want to see what a good remaster looks like, compare an old 'James Bond' picture to the 'frame-by-frame restorations' out now for $9.95 at most stores, even supermarkets. I ended rebuying 12 of them. I feel that they are worth every penny (the lone exception may be "To Russia With Love," but that is because of the glaring mistakes.) When "The Wizard of Oz" comes out on HD/BD, I'll probably buy it.

The studios have plenty of old films that they never even released on VHS. I can only hope that as HD/BD takes hold that many will be re-released on regular DVD.

Yeah, the newer stuff looks great on HD. But there's an awful lot of crap out there, too. Just because it's on HD/BD doesn't mean that it looks great. Just look at the PQ/AQ listings...

wallijonn

12-22-07, 10:41 PM

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Casablancaplayit1.jpg

The top can be cropped so that the the new frame completely fills a 16x9 frame. What needs to be done is a frame by frame cropping.

Art Sonneborn

12-22-07, 10:45 PM

The top can be cropped so that the the new frame completely fills a 16x9 frame. What needs to be done is a frame by frame cropping. See Hitchcock's "To Catch A Thief". I highly doubt that 16x9 existed in 1955. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048728/technical

OK mods, what are we supposed to say to this that would be allowed ?:rolleyes:

By the way yes widescreen films (with a few exceptions) were released after 1953.

Art

dkwhite

12-22-07, 10:46 PM

scitek

12-22-07, 10:48 PM

The top can be cropped so that the the new frame completely fills a 16x9 frame. What needs to be done is a frame by frame cropping.

Or you could use the Wide Zoom function on your TV set and crop it yourself for the exact same effect. No different than matrixing 7.1 surround from a 5.1 track as opposed to the DVD doing it for you.

Jgatie

12-22-07, 10:50 PM

The top can be cropped so that the the new frame completely fills a 16x9 frame. What needs to be done is a frame by frame cropping.

Why would you want to deface one of the greatest movies of all time just so you can fill up your screen? It was filmed 4:3 and it should stay 4:3. I bet next you'll want them to colorize it, right? :rolleyes:

townofturley

12-22-07, 10:51 PM

finally after over 4 months got my rebate discs. Casablanca was one of them.

Why did I need this on hd-dvd? 4:3 with black side bars, mono sound. I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matter

You're not serious, are you? You obviously haven't compared the HD DVD and SD DVD of this movie. If you did, you never would have made such a fallacious argument.

And what in the world does it's 4:3 aspect ratio and mono sound have to do with anything. I sure hope you're not going to say that only 1.78 or greater ratios and 15 channel sound movies deserve a high definition treatment. That would be one of the silliest and ignorant statements I've ever heard.

liquidneba

12-22-07, 10:59 PM

Kent_M

12-22-07, 11:03 PM

My wife and I watched Casablanca again a week ago and I loved looking at it and enjoyed the story so much I didn't even notice whether it was 4/3 or 16/9. Funny. I've been a photographer since I was thirteen. What I did notice was that the transfer was so good I could see detail in every shadow and every highlight. This movie is absolutely stunning to watch. The story is a classic and the movie and the viewer both benefit from being reissued in HD.

Jgatie

12-22-07, 11:07 PM

You're not serious, are you? You obviously haven't compared the HD DVD and SD DVD of this movie. If you did, you never would have made such a fallacious argument.

And what in the world does it's 4:3 aspect ratio and mono sound have to do with anything. I sure hope you're not going to say that only 1.78 or greater ratios and 15 channel sound movies deserve a high definition treatment. That would be one of the silliest and ignorant statements I've ever heard.

It is not really silly, but he may be ignorant of the benefit that HD will have on all films, old or new.

To the OP - To enjoy film, really enjoy it, one should see the classics, if only to decide they aren't your cup of tea. They should also be preserved and displayed in the best manner possible. That would be in HD and in the original aspect ratio. The HD DVD of Casablanca is a magnificent presentation. There is more "pop" in the stunning black and white than there is in many of the eye candy movies from today. I suggest you watch it and see. Then watch it again with the great Roger Ebert commentary. It really is the greatest "movie" (not film, movie) ever and it deserves all its accolades.

I know a lot of people jumped on you, but you really should be better at evaluating your prospective audience. There are many film buffs here, yet you chose to jump in and piss on one of the greatest films ever made. It's like jumping into a hockey forum and dumping on Wayne Gretzky or Bobby Orr. Ease into it. Ask what the advantages are to viewing a classic film on HD, then sit back and absorb the answers. Act like you want to learn, not like you want to fight and the responses will be more even tempered. Unless all you wanted to do is fight. If that's the case, then we all reap what we sow. I hope that wasn't the case and I also hope you were able to separate the wheat from the chaff in the replies you got.

PS - No matter what you think, Original Aspect Ratio is one of the biggest hot button topics there is. If you truly do not want to be riddled with flames, I wouldn't ever mention cropping a classic again. It's just not a subject to enter into here.

Enjoy your film. And seriously, listen to the Ebert commentary, it's like film school on a disk. :)

cavu

12-22-07, 11:51 PM

I can see why Elvis was the heart-throb he was before he got old and disgusting.:pYeah ... he was an ancient 42 when he died.

Dave Mack

12-22-07, 11:53 PM

HDLooker

12-23-07, 12:20 AM

I finally received my HD-DVD version of Casablanca this past week. The picture quality was stunning. Its amazing that such an old movie can look so good!! the story line is timeless and I can't recommend it enough. Of course it is 4:3 format as that is the way it was originally filmed. I wouldn't change a thing.

sjp777

12-23-07, 12:53 AM

glad I could give you all a 4 page place to wave your arms about like koko the gorilla.

Yea the vhs thing was an exageration. Any sd dvd I run thru an upconvert hdmi player and maybe I need a 60" display to see the difference but for now I stand by the sd dvd is way good enough for this era of film

Don_Kellogg

12-23-07, 01:10 AM

akbled

12-23-07, 01:14 AM

Yeah ... he was an ancient 42 when he died.

Really, I would have thought he was older. I guess I never really did the math on that one.:) I apologize to anyone I may have offended with the old remark. I stand by the disgusting one though;)

Andy_K

12-23-07, 01:37 AM

Partly because of this discussion, and partly because my HD Casablanca just happened to arrive today, I popped in the disc to check out the transfer and also to show my best friend how good a b&w hd transfer could look. (Taking a chance there since I hadn't seen it yet myself.)

About ten minutes into the film, she asked me to pause and said, "This is really strange, but, you know, I don't t hink I've ever actually seen this."

After my shrieked "What!" stopped reverberating off the walls, she said, "I know I've seen clips in documentaries and in Play It Again Sam, and I sort of just figured I must have seen it, but I realize I haven't." She is no film illiterate: she used to review for her college paper; she loves 30s and 40s American films; she can quote chapter and verse on the 1939 film Midnight, and that's never even been on DVD (which is, incidentally, a crime).

So, even though we had only meant to watch a little, we hunkered down to watch the whole thing, which -- big surprise! -- she loved. For about the first half hour, she kept s aying, "Wait a minute! *That* line comes from Casablanca?" every couple of minutes. She was in shock that so many completely familiar lines all came from this one picture.

At the end, she said, "Wow. That was a really great movie...except the script was so full of old cliches...."

Don't worry: She was kidding.

PRO-630HD

12-23-07, 01:46 AM

finally after over 4 months got my rebate discs. Casablanca was one of them.

Why did I need this on hd-dvd? 4:3 with black side bars, mono sound. I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matter

Are you serious with that question? This title has some of the best images ever to be released a HDN format. Yes pillarboxed on the sides because it was filmed that way in the original academy aspect ratio of 1.37:1.

PRO-630HD

12-23-07, 01:48 AM

The top can be cropped so that the the new frame completely fills a 16x9 frame. What needs to be done is a frame by frame cropping.

No!!!!!! It does not!!!!!!!!!!! When you start doing that you start cutting off peoples heads!!!!!!

I would have thought pan & scanning of widescreen movies would have taught you a lesson.

eizenga13

12-23-07, 02:43 AM

it is 100% not good for any format.. HD DVD is closest to how I want the image to look, the SD while good is nowhere NEAR as good as we deserve... check this for your attitude to change!

Casablanca SD -VS- HD comparison (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews27/casablanca.htm) HINT: HD DVD WINS! :)

A small quote from the review:

"Image difference could be as little as a 10-15% improvement over the Special Edition but it amounts to a huge disparity if you consider how strong the SE looks - and how little room for improvement there appeared to be. The HD visually looks smoother, sharper and what I can only describe as having 'more depth'. Certainly much more film-like. Contrast is at perfection levels I have never seen. The previous restoration gave us an almost flawlessly clean image, but this HD transfer has bumped it up a healthy notch."

Dave Mack

12-23-07, 04:02 AM

and that comp. was done with a 768P plasma. Not even revealing all the detail...

TheMessiah

12-23-07, 04:30 AM

I really can't believe this thread...
I'm 18 and I've been collecting classic movies for 4 years now.
The main reason which got me into HDM was the Kubrick Collection which was finally released on HD DVD.
It's just unexplainable to me how someone can appreciate HD transfers of films like Underworld or Ultraviolent and be that ignorant to b/w films.
For myself, I can't wait until Criterion finally starts releasing their movies in HD, whether it's BD or HD-DVD.. it will be a glorious day :)

Paulidan

12-23-07, 08:14 AM

She is no film illiterate: she used to review for her college paper; she loves 30s and 40s American films; she can quote chapter and verse on the 1939 film Midnight, and that's never even been on DVD (which is, incidentally, a crime).

Midnight is a wonderful film. I'm constantly suprised at some of the classics (or rather, old movies) that make it to disc, and the ones that haven't yet. I'm hoping that Universal will release a themed box set of Billy Wilder (co-) scripted films to dvd at some point, that way I can get Midnight and Hold Back The Dawn, which along with the rest of the Ladd/Lakes and the technicolor Hall/Montez fantasys - these are the movies highest up on my wish-list now- and they are all Universal owned- go figure. I don't hold any hope for them coming to HD- but if they did I think the Hall Montez movies, like Cobra Woman, could be visual knockouts.

I was going to comment that it was interesting she could be so familiar with a movie primarily known only to film buffs while not knowing a pop culture staple- but I've been a classic movie fan all my life and I still haven't seen Psycho. Problem is, I don't feel like there is much of a need to at this point, because all the main elements have long been spoiled. I was just a kid when they broadcast a show called Don Adams Screen Test where they would take members of the audience and have them re enact a scene from a famous movie. Thats where I first saw the big reveal at the end of Psycho. I can imagine the same attitude with the ubiquitious Casablanca hallmarks (play it, sam; this looks like the begining of a beautiful friendship; I'm shocked- SHOCKED to find gambling going on here!)

to the moderator who bemoaned the fact that so many people were not taking the opportunity to educate the OP- it just seems like such a futile endevour- not that the OP is beyond teachable- just that the studios and CEMs are doing their best to thwart these efforts. People come into HDMs expecting the equivilent of Imax 3D for their favorite films and when they merely get more refined PQ they are disappointed. It is not in the studios or CEMs interest to let every J6P in on the dirty little secret that HDMs, while better, are rarely a night and day difference over well mastered and encoded dvds- of which there are many.
And few people really do have the equipment or viewing conditions or even the interest to gauge the differences.

The other thing about this thread I find amusing is the amount of film fans here who are depressed about the attitudes of the tech fetishists like the OP who would rather watch their equipment than the actual content. I've been here under different names for 6 years now, and I've never thought of AVS as a place for hardcore movie buffs so much as for tech buffs who like movies for their ability to display their gear to its best advantage. I go to HTF or elsewhere if I want to talk about film...but it's nice to see that attitude starting to come to the fore here more.

For the poster that mentioned Sex and The Single Girl- I'm expecting a Natlie Wood Box set from Warner this year with that title. Splendor In The Grass, if any, will likely be the one to make it to HD though as is the one getting the SE treatment.

JBLsound4645

12-23-07, 08:25 AM

The top can be cropped so that the the new frame completely fills a 16x9 frame. What needs to be done is a frame by frame cropping.

If you did that you’ll going to lose the close up shots or other shots. No this is how it is meant to be (academy) ratio.:)

ccotenj

12-23-07, 08:25 AM

The top can be cropped so that the the new frame completely fills a 16x9 frame. What needs to be done is a frame by frame cropping.

well, it *could* be cropped... but it would destroy the perfect framing of the original shot... there's good solid "filmmaking reasons" why that shot is framed that way... besides the "technical" reason for it being shot that way (heads on the thirds), it wouldn't have the same emotional impact if it was framed differently... this particular shot conveys the loneliness of rick's world... him, by himself, in the foreground... the ever present sam looking over his boss' shoulder, but never close enough to rick to truly be part of him, and then an empty and dark world behind them... crop the top out of it, and you lose that...

i *think* that those who don't like oar movies either forget or don't know that the way a shot is framed conveys much more than a "picture"... that's ok, the rest of us can (and should) kindly attempt to teach them that... :)

Lee Stewart

12-23-07, 09:15 AM

This WHOLE thread is based on one's personal taste in movies. Everyone is right . . . everyone is wrong.

"Different strokes for different folks."

JBLsound4645

12-23-07, 09:16 AM

Now I'm not actually "Young" any more but I'm on the younger end of the spectrum 33 to be exact. My wife and I love older movies like Gone with the wind, Wizard of OZ, the Bogart films, just to name a few. Of course I like the newer effects films as well. My reason for wanting the older films really stems from story line. It seems today that it's come down to effects selling films. True there are several movies that have a great story line, but it seems to be a dyeing art. Just like computer games used to have wonderful back stories, today the norm seems to be pretty graphics, and shoot them up, not that I don't enjoy that.

Sure these films were made before I was born, but that does not mean I can't enjoy them. Not transferring them would be some what of a crime in my opinion. If done right they can look really good. Lets focus on something newer like Star Wars. What if Lucas didn't restore the original masters when he found out how bad they were after only a few years. Films start to break down. Classics should be preserved for the generations to come. If these movies stop getting passed along the media change someday you won't be able to find a VHS, DVD, other player to play them.

Maybe they don't fully conform to the benefits of HDM, but I think they should be carried forward in the best possible formats.

"The Wizard of Oz" is if not a family classic for all ages its got a typical Christmas tradition here in the UK that gets played once a year. I run the DVD once a year around the same time and WOW does the impact of the film leave a lump in your throat, dry mouthed and tears flooding down you’re face.:)

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz1.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz2.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz3.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz4.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz5.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz6.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz7.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz8.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz9.jpg

I didn’t mind at all the remix on this because it gave it a slightly fresher and more magical musical experience, that I have listened for over the past few decades on TV. The Dolby 5.1 added a more openness sound with a few extra sound effects. The tornado sequence really grabbed my attention with a whipping gust of blowing on the LFE.1 a few bumps and knocks here and there and when the house finally, came to a halt! On the other, (wicked witch of the west)!

JBLsound4645

12-23-07, 09:25 AM

The moment Dorothy realizes the house as stopped moving, and the stillness in the soundtrack as she walks though the house, leans forwards and opens the front door, wow the emotional impact that moment has on me, tears, Niagara falls, someone please pass the tissues please.

The music goes into a mellow tranquil dream state, as Dorothy, looks around and around and the line “Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore”. Wow that puts a smile on the face.:)

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz10.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz11.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz12.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz13.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz14.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz15.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz16.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz17.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/TheWizardofOz18.jpg

ccotenj

12-23-07, 09:25 AM

This WHOLE thread is based on one's personal taste in movies. Everyone is right . . . everyone is wrong.

"Different strokes for different folks."

well, no, not really... as i (attempted, anyway) to point out in my post, there's reasons why movies are framed in certain ways... changing the framing changes the impact of the film, and changes the message the moviemaker is trying to present...

however, you are entitled to your opinion... :)

which, now that i re-read it, really does have some truth in it, in that some people prefer to go "oh, wow!!!" and some people prefer to watch movies... i suppose neither is "better", but it's my preference to watch movies... i "prefer" them on hdm, since it provides a "better" (subjective term) presentation...

eizenga13

12-23-07, 09:26 AM

and that comp. was done with a 768P plasma. Not even revealing all the detail...

Exactly I have been thinking of re-reviewing it in 1080p... Since I review HD DVD for DVD Beaver, it would certainly be my pleasure to do so. :)

ccotenj

12-23-07, 09:27 AM

darn it jbl, stop that... besides making me feel a little drippy eyed just thinking about those scenes, you are making me lust for this movie on hdm even more... :)

JBLsound4645

12-23-07, 09:34 AM

darn it jbl, stop that... besides making me feel a little drippy eyed just thinking about those scenes, you are making me lust for this movie on hdm even more... :)

LOL Wicked I know how you must be feeling right now, (Niagara falls) tissues please. :)

One thing is I noticed the colour on the B&W is not quite B&W wasn’t there a name for this, movie something or other??

Lee Stewart

12-23-07, 09:55 AM

well, no, not really... as i (attempted, anyway) to point out in my post, there's reasons why movies are framed in certain ways... changing the framing changes the impact of the film, and changes the message the moviemaker is trying to present...

however, you are entitled to your opinion... :)

which, now that i re-read it, really does have some truth in it, in that some people prefer to go "oh, wow!!!" and some people prefer to watch movies... i suppose neither is "better", but it's my preference to watch movies... i "prefer" them on hdm, since it provides a "better" (subjective term) presentation...

So your opinion is that this thread is all about black bars?

I think not.

ccotenj

12-23-07, 09:56 AM

well, the kansas (i.e. black & white) scenes are sepia tone (vs. "true black & white"), if that's what you are driving at jbl... that's what gives it that "different" look... kinda brown, i guess...

ccotenj

12-23-07, 09:56 AM

So your opinion is that this thread is all about black bars?

I think not.

no, lee, it's not. i think you misunderstood my post. even for movies that are framed at a ratio that eliminates black bars, there's a definitely difference of opinion of "what 'belongs' on hdm"... and that opinion tends to break upon the line that i pointed out when i agreed that you had a point...

JBLsound4645

12-23-07, 10:00 AM

well, the kansas (i.e. black & white) scenes are sepia tone (vs. "true black & white"), if that's what you are driving at jbl... that's what gives it that "different" look... kinda brown, i guess...

I don’t have an issue with it I just remember someone telling me about this around 6 years ago. Thanks, and merry Christmas.:)

ccotenj

12-23-07, 10:03 AM

I don’t have an issue with it I just remember someone telling me about this around 6 years ago. Thanks, and merry Christmas.:)

nope, you shouldn't have an issue with it, it's the way it's "supposed" to be (i.e. the way the movie was originally produced)... the sepia tone heightens the drabness of the kansas scenes, making the "color scenes" have even a greater impact...

merry christmas to you too...

LazerViking

12-23-07, 10:10 AM

SamwisetheBrave

12-23-07, 10:20 AM

finally after over 4 months got my rebate discs. Casablanca was one of them.

Why did I need this on hd-dvd? 4:3 with black side bars, mono sound. I see absolutely no benefit over dvd, or even vhs for that matter

Having seen this over 30 times with my classes, I have to say that the HD DVD was nothing short of a revelation!

This is a stunning HD DVD.

Art Sonneborn

12-23-07, 10:36 AM

Widescreen formated movies were being experimented with in the late 20s and early 30s, but due to the Depression studios cut down on this expense.

I did a few searches... Casablanca was filmed in 1942. "Widescreen" format movies really came into their wide use with The Robe (1953) (in Cinemascope).

This was the few exceptions that I referred to in my earlier post. Widescreen did exist but the overwhelming majority of films prior to 1953 were 1.37:1. In fact ,if you search you will see that still almost half of all films ever made are 1.37:1 !

I want to see what they did with what they had. This is the part that is amazing to me. Take a look at the Busby Berkley musicals for example. The dance scenes are just incredible.

Look at the short depth of field focus techniques and the mood. I could go on and on but I sure hope that we get more and more of these great films presented in the best transfer of the original elements restored.

Art

JBLsound4645

12-23-07, 10:43 AM

nope, you shouldn't have an issue with it, it's the way it's "supposed" to be (i.e. the way the movie was originally produced)... the sepia tone heightens the drabness of the kansas scenes, making the "color scenes" have even a greater impact...

merry christmas to you too...

Thanks for that, I just have subconscious feeling I’ve seen one on TV before the tone of the B&W was different that’s all?

I believe there was THX laserdisc edition produced around the early 1990’s is that laserdisc edition in any way different from the current DVD versions?

Thanks.:)

Think we should have a golden oldie thread around here somewhere, you know somewhere over the rainbow…One thread for each category, Casablanca and The Wizard of Oz.:p

HorrorScope

12-23-07, 10:50 AM

Watched Wiz of Oz on HD Direct TV last night, it looked fantastic, best I ever saw it by far, 4:3 and all. HD did something right with the movie.

JBLsound4645

12-23-07, 10:56 AM

Watched Wiz of Oz on HD Direct TV last night, it looked fantastic, best I ever saw it by far, 4:3 and all. HD did something right with the movie.

Was it in original monaural or was it the remix edition Dolby 5.1?

Art Sonneborn

12-23-07, 11:12 AM

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p146/CarlosMeat/Oz02pb.jpg

I cut off ther pause bar at the bottom.

ccotenj

12-23-07, 11:20 AM

Thanks for that, I just have subconscious feeling I’ve seen one on TV before the tone of the B&W was different that’s all?

I believe there was THX laserdisc edition produced around the early 1990’s is that laserdisc edition in any way different from the current DVD versions?

Thanks.:)

Think we should have a golden oldie thread around here somewhere, you know somewhere over the rainbow…One thread for each category, Casablanca and The Wizard of Oz.:p

you aren't imagining things... i don't remember exactly which editions are which (i'm getting old :( ), but i believe the one most of us grew up with on tv didn't have the sepia tone... it was added back in on a more recent release...

i think i'd like the golden oldie thread... :)

Art Sonneborn

12-23-07, 11:23 AM

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p146/CarlosMeat/Oz03pb.jpg

JBLsound4645

12-23-07, 11:27 AM

you aren't imagining things... i don't remember exactly which editions are which (i'm getting old :( ), but the one most of us grew up with on tv didn't have the sepia tone... it was added back in on a more recent release...

i think i'd like the golden oldie thread... :)

Well I’m in my 40’s now and after listening to the soundtrack for the Wizard of Oz many times over the Christmas period, a few times at home a few times around a friend’s home and then on DVD six years ago, was breathtakingly fresh and new. There’s a second edition that I haven’t brought has of yet, this is the current version that I own.

http://img.tesco.com/pi/entertainment/DVD/LB/391131_DV_L_B.jpghttp://img.tesco.com/pi/entertainment/DVD/LF/391131_DV_L_F.jpg

By the way nice picture still Art, is that directly from the screen with a digital camera or from the screen capture on the DVD or HD what ever player?:) The images look more like 1.85:1 W/S than academy ratio. If not cinemascope a few decade’s too early.:D

Art Sonneborn

12-23-07, 11:28 AM

From Wizard of Oz Lore Page
"I get asked often exactly how the The Wizard of Oz was filmed and shown when it was first released in 1939. When the movie premiered it was shown with the Kansas sequence in sepia-tone and the Oz sequence in Technicolor. This is how the film was made and intended to be seen. The Kansas sequence was actually filmed in black-n-white, but this portion of the film was colored in vats of sepia, a brownish pigment. The Wizard of Oz first aired on network television (CBS) on November 3, 1956 and was shown with the Kansas sequence in black-n-white and the Oz sequence in Technicolor. In fact, most of its tv airings show the Kansas sequence in black-n-white. It wasn't until the film's 50th anniversary telecast, which aired in 1990, that it was shown on television in its original form with the Kansas sequence in sepia-tone. This was after MGM had the film cleaned and restored. Then, in 1998 for its soon-to-be 60th anniversary, the film was digitally re-mastered by the folks at Warner Bros. and was re-released to theaters throughout North America. The color was exquisite and the soundtrack sounded better than ever."

ccotenj

12-23-07, 11:32 AM

thanks for looking it up art... :) i couldn't remember when they made it "right" again... that confirms what i was remembering, that when i was growing up watching it on tv, there wasn't any sepia...

same age group here jbl... :)

JBLsound4645

12-23-07, 11:36 AM

Art Sonneborn

12-23-07, 11:47 AM

By the way nice picture still Art, is that directly from the screen with a digital camera or from the screen capture on the DVD or HD what ever player?:) The images look more like 1.85:1 W/S than academy ratio. If not cinemascope a few decade’s too early.:D

Those were taken with a digital camera off the screen. You can see the DVR indicator at the bottom which I cut off. I actually took those about two years ago and at the time was more concerned about demonstrating the gorgeous color and detail than the AR.

Art

sharkshark

12-23-07, 12:04 PM

...I gotta say, I expected a couple things from this thread, including that it'd be locked. I see nobody took up my challenge about Black and White films in general above... ;)

However, it does seem a bit rediculous to still be discussing this, no? Exactly who is everybody trying to still convince, the OP? You are you arguing -against-, the silent majority that doesn't want classic films on HDM?

Art's dream may have died (as per his earlier thread on much the same topics), but for me the grand realization was that leak of the raw sales data that showed films like Mutiny on the Bounty had sold something in the order of several hundred titles in the months since launch. When I got into this, there was quite a push to get these classics out there, talk of Lawrence of Arabia being just the beginning for BD, and a slew of WB classics around the corner. I got my Kubricks, I got films to discover like the Sting and Grand Prix, but I have yet to get the many, many classic films that deserve a spot on my HDM shelf.

To nudge this thread back into something that I humbly think is an -actual- argument to be made, I'll make the following claims with as little irony as I can muster, and not entirely in order to provoke a reaction.

Claim: Not every movie, not even every classic or "good" movie, benefits significantly from being out on HDM.

For some films, the enjoyment has less to do with how it looks, and everything to do with the content of the film. There are fewer worse looking films than Clerks, for example. Shot to look like it was crappy B&W surveillance footage, it's not going to have a significant improvement on HDM. Is it a good film? Sure, I think so. Does it demand an HD release? Well, there's the rub.

For those with 90+" projection screens, any incremental increase is a dramatic one, even if it's simply a matter of removing compression artifacts and revealing grain instead. Accepting that the vast, vast majority of HDTV owners (let alone SD-only) do not have screen sizes this big, with the majority being 42" and smaller, the differences are so minute for a film of this nature that it becomes trivial.

Similarly, many animated films, with their bright colours and processed look, may be fine for these smaller screens as the SD compression can do a very good job with them. Given the nature of upscalling technologies, many a SD title with a clean, well defined SD picture can more than fill the need for the vast majority of HD set owners, as they'd notice little difference between, say, the ice fields of Happy Feet or Ice Age on (well) upconverted SD compared to HD on their fixed pixel resolution, smaller set.

Given the fact that anything you throw at your fixed pixel screen will be, strictly in terms of resolution, "HD", we can all agree that simply because it =says= HD doesn't make it "good". VHS on your HD monitor, no matter what your set size, looks worse than even SD broadcast television, yet for all intents and purposes you're seeing a (scaled) HD image on your set.

Meanwhile, just because the studios do a 1080 master and throw it out on HDM doesn't make it dramatically different than the SD counterpart minted from the same master.

So, if you agree that simply because it's HD it doesn't mean automatically that it's good, and if you agree that some films won't benefit very much on most HD sets because either they're crappy looking to begin with, or their master is so clean that the differences are minor comparing SD Upconversion to HD, then the argument can be made that not every film necessitates the expense of being released (or expense of purchasing) on HDM.

If THAT is the case, what films DO benefit? Well, what films -should- look good on SD, but are hampered by MPEG2 compression limitations? No matter how clean the print, for traditional movies shot on film, SD simply cannot resolve the same level of picture detail as HDM. For pre-Digitally Graded releases, the capture of the negative and subsequent downconversion to SD results in the loss of much detail, detail that simply can't be resolved through upconversion. HDM can, in ideal circumstances, create a significantly better picture in terms of colour reproduction, clarity of image, and lack of artifacts on even the oldest of films, and the smallest of screens.

Take the Searchers disc - given the grainy-ness of the image and age of the print, the SD version (as carefully constructed as it was) becomes a soft, almost diffuse image on even the most unrevealing of displays compared to the HD version. Closeups always can look good, as many pixels are being used to resolve the image, but with the wide vista shots and deep focus cinematography, the HDM image shines, showing detail right to the back of the room in Ford's masterful compositions. For a film this old to look this spectacular it's a tribute to the magicians at Warners, but it's also a testament to exactly the type of film (in terms of quality, and in terms of physical media) that benefits greatly from the increased colour gamut and resolution of HDM.

However, what do you do for those that don't really care about seeing details of the back wall in the cabin, or clear views of the background mountains in the tracking shots? What about those that just see another boring Western by that John Wayne old guy, or a film that doesn't have the chromium, polished glow of a Crank or Transformers in order to show off their set? How do you argue against that in any rational way? Alas, it's done with empty words on a fora such as this, often, beating dead horses over and over regarding quality of image or specifications over quality of content.

I'm at the stage that if I'm to be bothered adding a film to my collection I want it to be as good quality as possible so that the presentation doesn't distract from the film. We're spoiled nowadays with many of our setups that even watching SD discs (let alone my many LDs) that gave us much pleasure previously leaves us wanting for more.

The library of DVD titles is simply astonishing, and to expect each and every title, even just each and every major studio release to be redone for HDM is for me a pipedream. I'd be happy, in fact, with the simple realization that certain films of quality and distinction demand better treatment, demand for a HD release. Others are nice to have on HD, but are certainly not necessary for deriving pleasure from watching the flick. Heck, I'm not even sure the entire Criterion Catalogue =needs= to be on HD!

But, and let's be clear, I absolutely feel that certain films (and not just "intellectual" fare) demand to be seen in as good a presentation at home as possible, regardless of screen size. The David Leans, Hitchcocks, Kubricks have made major works that demand to have their major films on HDM. Heck, the same can be said of blockbusters like LOTR, or the Spielberg/Lucas oeuvres. That said, I =don't= think that a film like Rope (as excellent as it is) demands the same treatment that North by Northwest/Vertigo/Psycho/Rear Window do. I'm upset that they didn't do a HDM release for Lyndon, but I'm not surprises, and I'm not sure that The Killing or Killer's Kiss are top of the list for treatment either. The SD releases for these films are already fine for the most part, and any improvement would be, as above, extremely minor.

As it is, I continue to hope that studios will develop a market for the important films in their catalogue and continue releasing them on HDM. I personally am picking up as many as I can while I can, before they wake up and close down the program in favour of the next best thing, something that I simply don't believe for some time will rival the best of what we're getting right now (think MP3 downloads replacing current CD releases).

I think there are a tremendous number of films that are simply uselessly released on HDM, many that I myself have purchased as I didn't own the SD (The Jerk, Caddyshack, etc.) I'm trying hard not to be sucked into the incremental improvement of a rediculously fun film like Anchorman as the HDM won't be any funnier, the Scotch any "Scotchier", than the SD set I already have. I think there will continue to be releases that, if we're honest with ourselves, SD would be more than good enough, even on those 150"+ screens that some of you seem to have the budget for.

I think that the vast majority of us agree, however, that certain films absolutely demand HDM releases, from the comic book fun of Batman Returns to the glorious sweep of 2001. We've been lucky in this first year and a half with some quality releases on both formats, but we've been starved of late of those classics from the 60's and before that looked to be streaming out from the libraries of the studios. I hope that if and when these do start trickling out that those that have argued so effusively above will stand by that commitment and add these titles to your library, and that the studios are smart about what films actually have enough of an improvement to warrant release on HDM for us to invest in.

ps. And don't forget to port over all the extras from the SD special editions so that we can justifiably double/triple/quadruple dip on these films that we seem to love so very much. :)