Films that DON'T Need to be in HD

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

They may not be films, but those Star Trek TOS HD-DVDs might be the most unnecessary HD transfers ever. My God, every flaw just looks exaggeratedly worse.

I'm sure the inevitable Evil Dead Blu-Ray will only succeed in making the film look that much worse, much like what happened to it on DVD. I haven't seen the Evil Dead II Blu-Ray, so I don't know how the quality is on that one.

Any film shot before 1960 in a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Clerks

Since SD looks a bit shit on an HD screen, any film could be HD and you'd just be getting closer to the source. No resolution lines or artifacting, just the emulsion of the film negative. Can't see how that's a bad thing for any film.

Texas Chain Saw Massacre is an amazingly well shot film, but there's only so much clean up they can do on it. An HD master is going to look spectacular, but it's still going to look (appropriately) like a dirty-ass 16mm print.

Phil wins this entire thread. And the HD transfer that Don May Jr. did for TCM is supposed to be absolutely stunning.

Is there any reason to view American Splendor in HD?

I couldn't deal with Robocop on Bluray. At all. Thank god I kept my dvd.

Why not?

Before I got the Blu-ray player I was suspect of cheaper and older films in hi-def, but after a few months my eyes have adjusted. As long as the film was shot in 35 mm or higher there will be an increase in overall quality assuming the producer doesn't fuck up. 35 mm film actually has higher detail than 1080p from what I understand. The big difference I've noticed between even the best DVD transfers and Blu-ray is the edge enhancement, and the general detail of wide shots. My TV is only 42 inches as well, so I imagine the difference is much more obvious on bigger TVs.

So far the one thing I've seen in hi-def that didn't benefit at all was Faces of Death, which was filmed on mostly 16 and 8 mm.

There is something really fucking wrong with any movie enthusiast who would actually rally against a higher-definition picture. You're all reminding me of the cro-magnons who complained that CD's were too crisp, and they missed the hisses and pops of LP's.

As Phil said, any image made to be displayed on a big screen is going to be enhanced by a high-definition picture, unless you're still watching on a standard television. If you're watching on an HD set, and honestly can't tell the difference, well, you're blind. Sorry.

You're shopping in the wrong places. Stay out of Suncoast.

That price differential doesn't hold for new releases, though. If you're asking whether I would actually replace movies I already own for the Blu Ray version, I would honestly say that I'd only do it for my absolute favorites (the first Blu Ray I bought was the ultimate Blade Runner set). But given a choice for a new release, a film I don't currently own in any form, I'm going to spring for the better-looking release, even if it is a forty-year-old black & white movie.

I certainly agree with Phil and Greg...but some titles, like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT for example, probably don't absolutely have to be in HD given that so much of it was shot on SD video to begin with. The 16mm footage might get a slight bump, I suppose. But we're not talking about a LAWRENCE OF ARABIA hi-def revelation here.

But in general, I will be make no further SD purchases and haven't been for several months. It's all Blu-Ray from here on out for this home theater enthusiast. And if you love movies, then yes, it's worth it.

Another bummer about upgrading old titles is when the newer HD release has an inferior presentation of extras. (I know some people don't care about extras; I do.) Case in point: Universal's new Blu-Ray release of John Carpenter's THE THING is a joke. Yes, it's nice to see the film in HD (although, relatively-speaking, the picture quality is kinda disappointing) but the extras have been either abandoned or stupidly chopped up for this lame-since-inception U-Control gimmick that Universal insists on keeping.

I would have upgraded for THE THING if the picture quality was top-notch because I think it's probably Carpenter's best-looking film (thank you, Dean Cundey) but since it's not, and the extras have been fumbled, now I'm thinking I'll wait for a better release down the road, even if it's years from now.

I'm glad I've shaken the addiction I used to have to buy everything. Studio incompetence has clearly helped in that regard.

I find it hilarious that home video technology is simultaneously pushing 1080p HV on a 60-inch screen, and a digital copy for your fucking iPod.

Once you see films in HD, you just plaln don't want to watch them in standard def if you can avoid it. For instance, I bought all the James Bond films on VHS in 1996, cost me just under $200. Now If I want to watch one of the better ones (Goldfinger, From Russia with Love, ect..) I rent them on DVD, if it's Moonraker I watch the tape. I would buy the DVD's but now that I've seen them in Hi Def I'm just going to buy the essentials on Blu-ray.

If you can't understand the need to see Jamie Lee Curtis's breasts in Hi-Def, there may be no hope for you.

I think the idea is that eventually everything that can be HD will get the treatment at some point as to make DVDs obselete. Then you'll only have the choice of 1080p and at a DVD's price. It'll probably all be fucking digital distribution by then, just to keep costs right down.

I almost recorded the Hottie and the Nottie in HD this week... and then I realized I really don't need to see this movie.

My original plan when I bought my PS3 was that I would only get Blu-Ray for new releases. I figured that since Blu-ray players upconvert regular DVDs that it would be enough just to hang on to my DVD copies of older films like Bladerunner or Stripes, etc. I thought the upconvert would be enough for them to look the best they ever have and I'd still be able to retain the older film quality that I like to see in those films.

Then I watched the Jaws and Close Encounters DVDs I own. They looked horrible. Even with the upconvert, the artifacting was horrendous. Jaws was really bad because of all the water shots. Close Encounters really surprised me, because the most recent collector's set says on the back that the film had been remastered for use on Hi-Def TVs. It too looked awful. And it especially surprised me, because I've watched Raiders and Bladerunner on DVD on my set up and the upconvert looked great.

So, my stance has changed a bit. Due to pricing, I probably won't be picking up the Blu-ray equivalents immediately, but I will upgrade most of my collection over time now.

I can vouch for both these movies looking absolutely stunning in HD, particularly Close Encounters. I watched it on HDNM a few months ago and I was pretty surprised by how good it looked. The detail was so good the images were almost popping off the screen.

I suppose that's true, my only thing is that the first time I saw The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, it was a well-worn VHS copy, and I really think it added to the experience. Something about the audio being slightly warped, the flickering, even the occasional missing frame really made the movie's grungy, documentary feel come to life.

Of course, it was the first time I saw the Texas Chain Saw Massacre, so it's probably more likely that I'm equating the rush of the first viewing (as well as some very possible nostalgia) with things that aren't related, like poor video quality. It IS a beautifully shot film, and it deserves to be seen in it's original aspect ratio (which the VHS was not) but whenever I put on my DVD, I set the audio to Mono (unless I'm wrong, surround sound wasn't originally part of the film).

But this idea I have, that VHS is somehow inherently "grungier" than DVD isn't really a strong one. It's more based on the fact that all the trademark picture imperfections of VHS remind me of bootlegs, things of that sort, that have more of a "questionable" feel to them than an official DVD (or Blu-ray) release.

When you put on the Texas Chain Saw Massacre Ultimate Edition DVD, you have animated menus, all these options of documentaries about the making of the film, it's legacy, etc. Which is all good, it's why I bought the DVD, because I love the film and am fascinated by it's production. But I think the film itself almost benefits from as little fanfare as possible. It's so raw and dirty and REAL, it works on it's own terms. I don't want to be reminded that this is now a franchise, that this is widely recognized as one of the most influential horror films of all time. I just want to be dropped into the film.

These are all extremely minor gripes, of course, and given the choice between the VHS method (being dropped right into the film) and the DVD's (or Blu-Ray's) original aspect ratio and restored picture, I'm obviously going to chose the DVD (or Blu-Ray). I just think some films are experiences that work best when they stand-alone. But I suppose that debate is more about how to deal with the baggage certain films bring with them than technical specs.

To answer your second question, Chris - I've done like others in this thread and pretty much stopped buying DVDs, for lots of reasons. But I'm going to be kind of selective at first as to what I upgrade to HD on. I won't need Stripes or The Burning on Blu-Ray.

And sadly, I fear a lot of my more beloved obscure titles (Cockfighter, etc.) will never make it to Blu-Ray. Guys like Anchor Bay who remastered and re-released everything they could get their hands on 6-8 years ago are probably going to pick and choose a bit for round 2.

Maybe it's just the crispness of the picture ,that really shows the suit as plastic and rubber. Or maybe it's just that I never paid that much attention to it in other mediums, but the suit stuck out like a sore thumb in HD.

Faces of Death

I can't believe what I'm going to say but:
I love digital copies on blu ray discs.

Why?

Not every TV in our house has a blu-ray player (we just have one), let alone every TV in the house is HD. So what happens if I'm lazy and want to watch TV in my room? I use the digital copy on my ipod and hook the ipod into my TV.

It works great for on the road trips and gives the portability of DVD with an even greater protection from scratches and what not. On a business trip, just plug the iphone into my TV, and I have my movie with me.

When I'm home, sit in front of the home theater and enjoy the blu ray.

On that note, films that don't need to be in HD is a bad topic. All films should be in HD as long as the transfer is good and the price is nice. Having a bigger screen is almost certain to really take advantage of the quality, but a bad transfer will not get my money.

Price is a huge issue. I don't have any money these days personally, but I work (without pay) reviewing DVDs and Blu-rays, so I've ended up updating a few handfuls of my catalog titles for free. I'd day a solid half to two thirds of my DVD collection is filled with B and exploitation films, and I don't plan on updating most of those to hi-def, but in the future, if I have the money, I don't plan on buying any new films on DVD. Apparently Blu-ray isn't selling as well as expected, so I assume the prices will be dropping, and I've noticed most first week releases are only five dollars more lately.

I think shit films do not deserve to be in HD.

Hell, they don't deserve any physical manifestation whatsoever - but I guess we can only try and stop them making the same mistake twice.

Deep Throat.

I agree with this, it's like listening to old music like Hank Williams. All the clicks and pops and imperfections, to me at least add to the overall experience.

Fuck that. I want to see every single spit bubble and drool line, dammit.

Anything starring "Larry the Cable Guy".

Those don't need to exist in any form. Much like "Larry" himself.

I agree with the TCM sentiment, I think it looks more beautiful the more it's buried in filth.

Personally only committing to special effects movies and digitally shot/enhacned new ones at the minute after buying Bullit and being underwhelmed by the visual clarity, compared to the experience provided by something like Zodiac or Batman Begins.

The experience doesn't change if the movies classic, its just a question of visual enhancement, and old movies can't be reshot, so a level of acceptance has to enter in.

Can't wait for Speed Racer, don't want to see the old universal horror stuff cleaned up, or godzilla for chrissakes

Again, not wanting to see any movie cleaned up is just bizarre and irrational. Classic rock does not sound better with hisses, pops and noise, and old movies do not look better with low-density image and blur. That's just stupid.

You're kinda setting up a strawman here, Greg. I have never heard an audiophile saying that it's the hiss and pops they like about vinyl. If they say that, they're idiots. What most people like about classic vinyl is that it's the format that it was originally intended to be heard in so it was mixed with that final media in mind. Because it was made with that media in mind it sounds better in that form.

Take Stevie Wonder's Music of My Mind as an example. It wasn't just mixed with the final media in mind but with the imperfections that the production created in mind. There are a couple of moments where Wonder, Margouleff and Cecil have mixed a song so that the production of the vinyl cuts a really deep groove that almost but not quite distorts the song. That distortion doesn't appear on the original digital version and it changes the song.

I think film is the same way. A lot of films were created with their final destination in mind, the theatre. 16 MM and to a certain extent 35mm can hide imperfections when they are projected in the way intended. The rubber suit of the monster looks better, the set dec looks more like a room and not like a set, and the actors make up makes them look right and not like they are wearing make up. It is assumed that set dec, monster design etc can use short cuts because the media will hide said short cuts.

But now with HD transfers people aren't taking the time to ask if the movie will be changed at all by the transfer and just doing a block transfer. Suddenly those short cuts become glaringly obvious and make the movie dificult to watch.

I'm not advocating that every movie needs to be seen in it's original intended format but that it's original format needs to be considered when making the transfer. That's not being done right now. Until it is, I'll be perfectly happy with the versions of movies I already have. No need to spend more money to get a less watchable version of the film.

They exist. Bub Williams says it in this thread.

Projected film has a higher resolution than HD, though, so I don't know how true that holds. And Greg was responding to people saying they prefer when a film's print quality is "buried in filth".

That's a bad transfer, not a format problem. We can't pretend that a projected film print of The Evil Dead somehow hid all its seams. That's your 18 year old VHS tape, not the film.

No argument against bad transfers, though. What are some examples?

The older the film, the LARGER the screen it was designed to be shown on, generally speaking. Most of us are too young to remember the single screen movie palaces, many of which got leveled or multiplexed, but those screens were HUGE - closer (if not equal) to IMAX size than the size of your typical multiplex screen. That DVD is a closer approximation of what you would see on a old-school movie screen than Blu-ray is absolutely absurd.

Film resolution > Blu-ray resolution > DVD resolution. We'll leave 70mm out of it altogether.

Fortunately, you are free to connect your Blu-Ray player to your TV through S-Video so you can recapture the look and feel of the way you imagine these classic films actually looked. This isn't vinyl -vs- CD, because a theoretically perfect vinyl record is capable of superior sound to a CD, in hypothetical, non-real-world conditions. This is more like the people who say you can see more of the movie in the full screen version because it doesn't have the goddamn black bars*. Also, there's a wide variety of classic films from all over the world available from Hong Kong in the fading, but still popular VCD format. If DVD is better than Blu-ray, then logically VCD is better than DVD. And damn, those VCDs are affordable. Sure, you have to change the disc, but it's worth it for the more authentic cinematic experience that only VCD can apparently, by your logic, provide.


*Leaving Super 35 out of the equation, and that extra picture area isn't really part of the movie anyway.

You guys covered a lot of what I was going to respond with, but I also want to address the comment that filmmakers designed their work in such a way that the format would hide effects seams. That's silly. Until the age of CGI, effects artists didn't particularly worry about photorealism. I doubt that the makers of the Flash Gordon serials were under any illusions that their spark-shooting models hanging from strings were going to fool anyone. Nobody at Toho thought that a guy in a rubber suit stomping on small buildings was going to look like an actual 200-foot lizard. And as Phil pointed out, seeing a movie on the big screen is pretty much the worst way to hide effects seams; it's going to enhance them.

And let's be honest, what people are defending here is not in any way a comparison to theatrical viewing. Most of you haven't even seen these films in a theater. You're comparing it to your hazy memories of childhoods spent watching them on grainy, blurry VHS. Yes, I'm sure the Godzilla suit was much more convincing in that format. But don't even try to beat the drum of "original filmmaker's intention", because that's not what you're talking about. They intended their work to be seen on a forty-foot (or bigger) screen. Failing that, HD comes a lot closer to their intention than a fuzzy home video version.

Greg seems to have hit the mark. Problem at times though, is sometimes some blu rays go though a lot of enhancement that they are degrained (or known as digital noise reduction). The Godfather trilogy on blu-ray is an excellent example on how the grain was kept and the film look is still there.

There's a whole separate debate to be had, too, on whether film grain represents an aesthetically pleasing aspect of film, or a technical limitation to picture clarity. It's been had many times in the "digitial vs film" debate, and there's too much emotional attachment on most people's part to discuss it reasonably. Personally, I think that if Hitchcock had had access to digital filmmaking, he'd have used it. But I'll never be able to prove that, obviously.

I have a question.

How does the quality of the picture compare between an upconverted SD-DVD viewed on a HDTV versus a SD-DVD viewed on a SD TV? Is it about equal or is one much worse than the other?

It all depends on the quality of the image on the DVD. A standard def TV can actually hide a lot of flaws that an HDTV (especially a big one) will magnify. Most modern DVD releases look reasonably good on HDTV, especially when upconverted. But older releases can really take a beating on my 50" set, and would "look better" on a standard TV, simply because you wouldn't notice the low-quality image as much.

Then there are 4:3 letterbox dvd's, which only look good on a standard tv.

To add my two cents to this thread, 1080p is roughly equivalent to the resolution of 16mm film. So even Clerks would benefit from an upgrade if you wanted to see every last grain.