Ok one and alll, is there any point in purchasing anything other than DVD for a film from the 1970's or before?

As an example - Omega Man (Charlton Heston) - DVD UK-£5, Blu-Ray £14.99

Mon Sound, Grainy stock, limited extras.

Would love to hear other's thoughts on at which point to cut off and not buy Blu-Ray.

Ritch

As tweeter says it really does depend. Some films from the 60's or before look great in HD while some films from only a few years ago look diabolical. It really comes down to the source material available and the quality of the transfer.

Edit: Here is a link to a thread on AVSForum comparing screenshots of DVD Vs HD. I've only looked over a few pages & while they're mostly newer films there are older titles in there as well such as Spartacus. As it's quite an old thread, started over two years ago, some of the shots are from HDDVD versions so any Blu-ray versions that have since come out may not be identical.

It is a tough call to be honest and I always check the transfer quality of the blu-ray by reading any reviews I can find, such as reviews by High-Def Digest!!!

If I see the movie gets a great review I consider the upgrade.  However I am picky about what I feel should/would benefit from the Blu-Ray specifications so it is very doubtful I would upgrade a rom com/drama/romanace film vs. a sci-fi/thriller/action film!!!

In pure theory any film shot on either 16mm or 35mm should look better on blu-ray than on DVD, and most do, due to the higher resolution provided by HD and film. A single 16:9 film frame 35mm has a maximum scanned resolution of 4096x2304 pixels before all that is scanned are the details of the film grain. 16mm has half that (2048x1152 pixels). A Blu-ray image is 1920x1080 pixels while a DVD image is 720x480 (and when stretched horizontally to undo the anamorphic 16:9 squeeze is 853x480). By the numbers Blu-ray images should look better than a DVD image. Most of the time they do, but the quality of the film source can make and HD transfer difficult and not cost effective, if restoration is needed to fix things like scratches dirt and discoloration from bad storage.

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Quoting cmaeditor:

Quote:
In pure theory any film shot on either 16mm or 35mm should look better on blu-ray than on DVD, and most do, due to the higher resolution provided by HD and film. A single 16:9 film frame 35mm has a maximum scanned resolution of 4096x2304 pixels before all that is scanned are the details of the film grain. 16mm has half that (2048x1152 pixels). A Blu-ray image is 1920x1080 pixels while a DVD image is 720x480 (and when stretched horizontally to undo the anamorphic 16:9 squeeze is 853x480). By the numbers Blu-ray images should look better than a DVD image. Most of the time they do, but the quality of the film source can make and HD transfer difficult and not cost effective, if restoration is needed to fix things like scratches dirt and discoloration from bad storage.

NTSC DVD is 720x480 no matter what aspect ratio it is. Anamorphic only changes the shape of the pixels, not the number. Those numbers you quoted are for high-quality stock, but even so, pretty much any film except maybe 8 mm has more effective resolution than DVD.

But a 35mm print that has been playing for a week has a resolution that is closer to DVD than to Bluray. A bluray that was mastered from the original film master should give you a better image than you would see on the big screen in the second week. One of the main reasons to switch to digital is to get away from the film print wear issue.

pdf

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Quoting pdf256:

Quote:
But a 35mm print that has been playing for a week has a resolution that is closer to DVD than to Bluray. A bluray that was mastered from the original film master should give you a better image than you would see on the big screen in the second week. One of the main reasons to switch to digital is to get away from the film print wear issue.
pdf

Film doesn't degrade that quickly and dirt and scratches aren't really the same thing as softness.

Actually everytime you play a film, it does degrade a little bit at a time, so a film shown opening weekend vs. week 7 in the days before digital, you would've seen a major difference.  Also storage is an issue as well, since heat and humidity can and does ruin film, which is why studios today keep them in temperature controlled vaults vs. 50 years ago.

The quality of the new transfer for the Blu-Ray can make a lot of difference for whether or not it's worthwile to go Blu.

I too tend to consult reviews to find out. Some sites that have not been mentioned yet earlier in this thread are
DVDBeaver comparisons
DVDBeaver Blu-Ray Reviews
DVDTalk Blu-Ray Reviews

Quoting JackKnight:

Quote:
I do alot of research into finding out if the transfer is worth it. If it's not, I won't buy it. But I won't buy the DVD either. I've gone 1080p, no going back now. So patience is key. I look at factoring issues like will their be a double dip in the future to the extent of anniversary editions, special editions, etc. And If I have to wait, I'll wait.

Out of idle curiosity, what do folks plan on doing about the thousands of genre films that will never get a blu release?  I appreciate the whole "hi-def rules" concept, but isn't that like cutting off the nose to spite the face?