Originally Posted by 18 Brumaire
So it would appear that we are in a period like the early DVD years, when many DVD titles were merely ported over from laserdisc masters such as the original Kubrick Collection
I would say it is similar, only with HD resolution and larger screens than ever before, even more visible...
I guess the rule of thumb should be that if a catalog title is coming to Blu, and has not been remastered already for DVD (e.g. Braveheart) or has not been announced as undergoing a remaster or restoration (e.g. The Robe), then we can probably expect a recycled DVD master.
Most likely this is true (except I think you meant to say "Gladiator" vs "Braveheart"). But I think a movie can still look good on Blu-Ray even if it is a recycled master. It just depends on the shape of the master and whether or not the studio had already applied DNR/EE, to the older master. Apparently Warner used to do this quite a bit. It looks like Paramount did as well.
I guess I can understand the bottom-line approach, but I cannot see giving such a half-arsed release the "Sapphire" treatment. Maybe this should have been part of the "Diamelle Collection".
You know, I did not even think of that angle until it was mentioned a few posts above. Indeed, the word "Sapphire" appears to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick to ask for more money. At the least, "Sapphire" edition movies should have a higher level of quality for PQ/AQ. "Gladiator" should not be allowed to pass the muster as a "Sapphire" release, while it appears that "Braveheart" should.
No way am I paying more than $12 for "Gladiator" and I will most certainly rent it first to determine if it is even worth the $12.
But I am a big fan of this movie, and would love to have it in my collection, especially since I no longer own the DVD version.