pro-bassoonist

Apparently KINO have a Blu release in mind. The info below is in response to a Blu-ray.com member's inquiry:
Pro-B

jackson walker

Thanks, Pro-B. This will be mine on day one. I've been waiting to upgrade from my VHS copy of the Giorgio Moroder version (although I will miss Bonnie Tyler and Pat Benatar on the soundtrack).

PopcornTreeCt

I'll wait for the MoC.

videoguy

I apologize if I'm thread crapping, but I don't think I'd ever buy a movie filmed in either the 1910's or 1920's on HD DVD or BLU RAY. I'd buy it if it were cheaper than the DVD version of course, but I mean, what's the point of having it in HD versus DVD when it's so old?! It's not in color, and it's not even a widescreen aspect ratio! I kind of think even newer comedies are pointless to own in HD as well unless found for cheaper than you can get the DVD.

pro-bassoonist

With all due respect these two comments suggest that you obviously know very little about HD transfers.

Pro-B

Supermallet

Will this version be presented at the proper fps?

ali_b

I know it's dirty and wrong, but on any eventual Blu Ray of Metropolis I'd quite like the bastardised Morodor version, colourisation, fps errors and abysmal soundtrack alongside the proper restored version. It's hardly going to take up masses of space on a 50gb disc is it?

ali_b

Kino already do a restored version, which can be found at Amazon.

Arpeggi

Fail.

videoguy

I don't get it. What did I say have to do with your answer? That I don't think they can transfer films that were filmed in black and white? That I don't know they can letterbox the sides of 1:33 aspect ratio for HD?

HD gives you higher resolution of the original film. Not busting on the artistic greatness of the film, just saying what's the point of paying more for HD when the film is so old? Really, what does HD bring out in this that DVD has not already? A little more sharpness?

whotony

HumanMedia

Reading your responses it seems like you have a mental blind spot.

In answer to your, perhaps rhetorical, question - HD for an old film gives you exactly what HD does for a new film - better image quality and sound quality.

In fact many older films have not been given the proper care that a newer film has been given by default so there is often MORE to be gained from a restored HD version of an old film. In fact the experience can be much richer and carry you into that world more than any previous video/film duplicate version can, and let you appreciate the artwork in a way which you have never previously done, despite having seen it many times before in inferior medium.

Some examples of this are the HD versions of "The Searchers", "Grand Prix", "Robin Hood", "Mutiny on the Bounty" "Casablanca", "Forbidden Planet". Try watching some of these in HD and perhaps the penny will drop - the experience is vastly heightened and the medium and age of the production become less of a barrier to truly experiencing the film.

And remember the color space of DVD and HD formats is identical, and both use 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, which means that there is double the amount of grayscale information in the image than color. So a film in color doesnt benefit that much more than a film in black and white, well only 33% more. And there is no difference in color/greyscale content in HD over DVD, regardless of it being in color or black and white.

So back to my first sentence - HD for an old film gives you exactly what HD does for a new film, perhaps more.

pro-bassoonist

Videoguy:

Please do not take it the wrong way, no one is here to scorn you! But obviously there is a lot in your perception about HD transfers that isn't quite on par with reality.

What I was attempting to point to you is that perhaps you do not understand what an HD transfer could add to an old film. None of the two points you made in your initial comment actually support your claim that old films are not suitable for HD treatment, they are simply irrelevant.

Reading the above comment for example tells me that you either believe that there is no point in presenting 1.33:1 framed films in HD or it is simply impossible. Unless, I am reading it incorrectly, and I doubt it, you are wrong on both counts.

To bluntly generalize, everything that DVD does HD could do (substantially) better.

Pro-B

bboisvert

Take a look at the HD versions of Casablanca or Adventures of Robin Hood. Then come back and discuss.

PopcornTreeCt

I wasn't impressed with Casablanca. The Searchers looked amazing though.

Mr. Salty

You're about the only one who hasn't been.

videoguy

I even find newer films annoying to watch in HD. Why? I notice every film blemish and speck and hair. They are only sharpened with HD. While I know it's probably really expensive to frame by frame remove blemishes, isn't it worth it for the true classics mentioned above? To me, restoration isn't complete until pretty much all the film blemishes are taken out.

Mr. Salty

You just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole.

whotony

well, obviously just fishing for responses now to the ridiculous posts by videoguy.

his last is just stupid.

kefrank

no offense, but this post makes it look like you are just trolling. you ignored the responses to your previously stated issue and with this post you turned to a separate issue that you have with hi-def. it sound to me like you either want to just rile everyone up or you don't really like hi-def so you have no reason to participate in this forum.

videoguy

Not really another subject. And not ignoring other responses, just realized I'm not making myself as clear as I wanted to be and that is why I posted again. I don't know about Kino's Metropolis, but generally, classic films even when "restored" usually have more film blemishes than newer movies. For me, old films would be worth paying extra for HD if they do go in frame by frame and clean up all the blemishes. (Not talking about grain, only the defects or dirt or hair filmmakers never intended to have). Just going back and copying a pristine print isn't going to be enough for me to justify paying more for having the same restoration of a classic movie on HD versus DVD. I have a hard time with watching even movies I love like Citizen Kane because I am distracted by hairs, scratches, cigarette burns, etc. I am this way because I used to transfer old home movies to video and had to watch out for hairs in the gate, not just because I'm a psychopath! Ha!

It's really just a matter of a balance between taste and economics for me and I just feel if a classic film is transferred to HD and be twice the price than DVD than it should be completely restored. Otherwise to me the HD classic movie is just a sharper hair in the gate, scratch or cigarette burn.

It's understandable to have film blemishes if an actual roll of film was unspooling and projecting onto that HD TV set. But if you're increasing the resolution in the magnitude of HD, then everything should be done to clean up every film blemish.

Many new movies are being shot in HD and are flawless when edited and output to disc. To me they are breathtaking and worth the extra cost of HD and especially if you already own it on DVD.



And now I'll take my next written attack that won't change my opinion!

Jason One

It's too bad this thread had to be so obnoxiously trolled by videoguy.

Me, I can't wait to get Metropolis on BD.

Breakfast with Girls

It sounds like the best solution for you is to do what you're already doing: buy new releases in HD and stick to DVD for the older catalog titles. I think you're missing out, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. No need to justify it here (and no need for others to flame you for it).

tylergfoster

Uh, yeah. Did something indicate this happens less with older (and, generally, based on what older films will be selected for hi-def, more classic and better-loved) films than with new movies?

videoguy

'preciate that, and I won't bug people anymore about this since apparently my opinion, low budget, urging of utmost quality, and trying to clarify my first posting bugs many of you.