Why are old films supposed to be better on new formats?

September 19, 2011 3:39 PM

I'm aware that re-releases of old films (eg, from the 70s, Star Wars I'm looking at you) are common as and when new formats become available, but what is the logic in this other than commercial?

It happened with DVD, and now it seems it's happening with BluRay. Now, given that Star Wars was filmed in 1977 with 70s technology, what the hell can releasing it on BluRay add to the experience? I may be missing the point, but it reminds me of a friend of mine who once thought that by burning a 64kbps mp3 to CD Audio, then ripping it back to mp3 at 320kbps he'd have a high quality version of the song. I told him he'd have a high quality recording of a low quality recording, which perfectly recreated how low the quality of the original was. He never seemed to understand. So what is it, other than "Sell more!" that is justifying the re-release of old material on new formats?

posted by dougrayrankin to media & arts (22 answers total)

Well, it makes sense if the movie is going to be remastered.

In 1977, Star Wars was filmed on and shown in theaters on film. Then, it was converted to video tape, which introduces a significant loss of quality. When they put out a laserdisk release, then didn't convert it from video tape, they went back to the film master. Ditto for DVD and for Blu-ray. So yes, with each remastered version you should see an improvement in quality.

However, if the company which is doing the re-release doesn't go back to the master, then you're correct, there won't be any improvement in quality. In many cases, this is done to give a movie which is out of circulation a wider release.
posted by muddgirl at 3:45 PM on September 19, 2011

From the perspective of people who own movie studios, 'sell more' is probably reason enough.
posted by box at 3:51 PM on September 19, 2011 [1 favorite]

To use your example, the Bluray of Star Wars is not a 320kbps mp3 copy of a 64kbps mp3, it's a 320kbps mp3 copy of the original studio recording of the music. In other words, to make the Star Wars Bluray, they copied the original film (film the format) not the DVD or VHS.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 3:51 PM on September 19, 2011 [1 favorite]

Film is much higher resolution than either DVD or BluRay. Even films made in the 40s have more visual detail than is reproducible in standard home formats. As the quality of the home format improves, a better approximation can be made to the original film.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:52 PM on September 19, 2011 [5 favorites]

Older films were shot on film (like the stuff that used to go in cameras that you took to have processed). Film is designed to be projected onto very large screens (i.e. in cinemas) so it is quite high resolution (though the concept of resolution isn't the same for analogue formats, like film, as it is for digital media). So if you put that information onto a Bluray disc, you can watch the film in much better resolution than you can on a DVD. It looks better, especially projected or otherwise in a large format.

But of course, money is the driving force behind this.
posted by ssg at 3:53 PM on September 19, 2011

Film is much higher resolution than either DVD or BluRay

There you go. To expand on this, the modern movie industry is odd in that it sometimes uses technology that is objectively worse in order to save time and/or money. One example is shooting on video which, even with million-dollar video cameras, isn't film and probably never will be. Another is CG special effects: to any objective eye they look like crap next to old-fashioned "practical" effects. But they often cost less.
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:59 PM on September 19, 2011 [1 favorite]

The problem with releasing old movies in higher-res formats, though, is that the stuff that was supposed to be blurry because of the medium is now crisp and clean and maybe makes the picture look worse.
For example, when Star Wars was released on Laserdisc, you could see the slightly-discolored square frames around the ships flying in space. (Of course, in the DVD and Bluray age, it's easier to digitally clean that up in the transfer, but they don't always go to that trouble with every movie).
posted by jozxyqk at 4:00 PM on September 19, 2011

Also, as side-note: 90 percent + of Hollywood films still shoot on films.

Exceptions are things like the new Star Wars movies, where Lucas shot on special, super-expensive video cameras. And a few films like "28 days Later" were shot on prosumer cameras like the Canon XL2 and then "blown up" to film for projection in theatres. In the case of "28 Days Later," the poor quality relative to shooting on film is pretty evident in the look of the movie.
posted by drjimmy11 at 4:01 PM on September 19, 2011

90 percent + of Hollywood films still shoot on films.

Er, "Still shoot on film." Specifically, 35mm film or even larger gauges for stuff like IMAX.
posted by drjimmy11 at 4:03 PM on September 19, 2011

If you're wondering about the quality of Star Wars specifically, ShutterBun put together a quick comparison of the original film, 2004 Special Edition, and the new Blu-Ray version. Even in these reduced size images, you can see an impressive (or startling) amount of detail.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:08 PM on September 19, 2011

The way film works is that the chemicals on the film itself react with light and change form, imprinting the image on it. The resolution is basically as high as you can make the grains of silver or chemical of choice, which is why you can have a tiny 35mm film blown up into a poster sized image.

Subjective quality estimates of professional 35mm film puts it in the ballpark of 24 megapixels.

In comparison, Bluray is currently at 2 megapixels (1920x1080)
posted by xdvesper at 4:08 PM on September 19, 2011

Lawrence of Arabia was shot in 1962 using 70mm film technology. To see the full details captured on the film, you'd likely want a display technology with at least 4x the vertical and horizontal resolution of blu-ray (=16x the number of pixels/frame).
posted by fings at 4:09 PM on September 19, 2011

DVD was far better quality than previous video formats, but it was still "standard" TV definition (720x480). Many films were remastered (that is, re-transferred from the original film) for the format, but it wasn't strictly necessary -- many DVD releases used older video transfers that were created for laserdisc, TV, or home video use. Case in point is the "original version" Star Wars DVDs -- they were mastered from laserdisc transfers.

Blu-Ray is higher definition (1280x720 or 1920x1080), so to release a movie on Blu-Ray a new transfer had to be done, in many cases.

And yes, film -- even old, grainy, blurry film -- is of sufficiently high definition that there is detail to be gained from a high-def video transfer.
posted by neckro23 at 4:24 PM on September 19, 2011

To ask this question, I have to assume you haven't actually seen a true Blu-Ray release on an HD set. There is definitely a difference, even if (like me) you're a bit blasé at this stage about the longevity of viewing technology. I have the Blu-Ray premium Netflix account just so I can watch the classics in the best possible quality. Obviously, this is most important where cinematography or special effects are an important element of the film; for a crappy DVD transfer, or most TV shows, Netflix Instant (which is in most cases going to be substandard with regard to DVD) is generally fine even for a cinéaste such as myself.

So that's the consumer end of things. You've just spent upwards of $1000 on a Blu-Ray player and HDTV? You want to get the most out of it, don't you? Thus the selling point of a new release on Blu-Ray. Even if the original film isn't remastered, you're going to have higher quality. Blu-Ray, along with the higher resolution, simply has more room for data than the now aging DVD format (itself a hack of the now venerable CD format). So you can actually get more film on the disc, including more special features, more commentary (sometimes three or more commentary tracks), more fillips and frills (such as pop-up trivia -- the appeal of which eludes me). Indeed, the limitations of the DVD format meant that a handful of movies were actually compressed (speeded up) to fit. But basically, for the consumer level appeal, you're talking about "more, more, more!"
posted by dhartung at 4:49 PM on September 19, 2011

what is the logic in this other than commercial?

None. Really.
posted by Rykey at 5:10 PM on September 19, 2011

Bigger screen HDTVs have now outstripped the capabilities of the DVD. The upscaling DVD players can squeeze a lot of detail out of a frame but they show a lot of colour banding in low-contrast images. You can re-capture that info by going back to the source footage.
posted by bonobothegreat at 5:31 PM on September 19, 2011

There you go. To expand on this, the modern movie industry is odd in that it sometimes uses technology that is objectively worse in order to save time and/or money. One example is shooting on video which, even with million-dollar video cameras, isn't film and probably never will be. Another is CG special effects: to any objective eye they look like crap next to old-fashioned "practical" effects. But they often cost less.

Gonna call bullshit here.

1) Video cameras can be fucking expensive (ie. cost more than a house), but even the most expensive HD "back" will run you less than a million. Add in lenses and supporting infrastructure, and you could probably break $1mil, but those costs apply to both film and video. (Breaking $1mil is a lot easier if you're shooting on a 70mm or larger negative. It's extremely specialized equipment that requires gigantic lenses.)

1a) Speaking of which, unless you've got incredible optics on your camera, you're not going to capture all 24MP of detail on that 35mm negative. I'll grant that you'll probably capture more detail than you can squeeze into of a 1080P Blu Ray frame, but the gap is closing quickly, and when you add in the fact that theatres often show old prints on dirty projectors with bad optics, the gap between what you see on the big screen in the theatre, and what you see at home is really small.

2) Claiming that we should shoot everything on film is like proclaiming "Let them eat cake." Film is expensive. More expensive than you can possibly believe. The cost of 35mm film stock and processing can run in the range of thousands of dollars per minute. The cost of filming on 35mm can approach the entire production budget of some films. And, remember, just like a still camera, you're paying for the bad shots and the good shots. If we only shot on film, many movies would not get made. The advantages of sub-35-mm film stock are quickly evaporating. 70mm and larger sizes are still king, but have been considered extremely extravagant for quite some time now.

If you have to ask what IMAX costs, the GDP of your country may not be able to afford it.

3) Shooting on film is a pain, especially if you want to edit on a PC (which, ironically means, converting your source material to video). Traditional film editing methods are tedious, expensive, and time consuming. Forget about using it in a challenging location (ie. a car) without building a gigantic rig. It's no surprise that directors are eager to give up on film, or go through considerable expense and effort to avoid it.

4) The Black Swan effects reel shut me up about your CG talking point. There were 240 CG edits in that film, and I think I noticed about 3 of them (plus a few more camera shots that were physically impossible when you thought about them) when watching the film. It's a tool, and when used well (as was done in Black Swan), it supports the director's vision. You may roll your eyes at the fact that they literally used CG to sweep the floor -- however, the floor was pretty damn clean to begin with; they were never going to get the floor that clean in real life; and the final product (with the spotless floor) perfectly supported the dreamlike atmosphere of the movie.

4a) Careful restoration of 35mm negatives can squeeze some extra detail out of them. Lucas has been doing this with the latest/greatest technology for each new Star Wars release. Sometimes the non-plot-related edits can be controversial though, as some folks aren't a fan of the color correction techniques he's used. However, good color correction is a whole lot more difficult on film, and I'm willing to grant that the changes may support his original vision. Honestly, I liked the restored DVD releases of the original trilogy, and I'll probably gawk at the detail shown in the Blu Ray release (and press the mute button on that scene with Vader).
posted by schmod at 9:11 PM on September 19, 2011 [4 favorites]

For example, when Star Wars was released on Laserdisc, you could see the slightly-discolored square frames around the ships flying in space.

FWIW, you could see the traveling mattes in the original film in theaters, too. That was simply a limitation of the then-new optical effect. But, we sort-of ignored it because the ships flying in space like that were something we hadn't seen before. We were too wowed to wonder what was up with the boxes.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:57 AM on September 20, 2011

Now, given that Star Wars was filmed in 1977 with 70s technology, what the hell can releasing it on BluRay add to the experience?

They were also re-released in 1997, at which point there was a better quality film original to work from for the home video versions. They cleaned up stuff like the mattes there, and then that eventually trickles down to the DVD. (Ignoring any questionable other edits that were made.)
posted by smackfu at 5:00 AM on September 20, 2011

Remember that any film or TV show that was filmed on actual film can be downgraded to HD. The resolution of your TV might be 1080 pixels, but the resolution of an analog film is measurable in atoms! Take a look at the recently airing episodes of Cheers on HDNet, which are cropped widescreen and broadcast in high definition. Even the sound quality is better than the old digital VHS most TV stations have used in the past for old reruns.
posted by General Tonic at 8:06 AM on September 20, 2011

What the hell can releasing it on BluRay add to the experience? I may be missing the point

Yes, you are missing the point. Releasing old stuff on updated formats is mostly about making the old stuff available to the people who can play only the new stuff. As a non-audiophile, but a great music fan, I've been continually amazed over the past few decades at how readily and rapidly people abandon quite adequate technology when the new stuff comes along.
posted by Rash at 8:18 AM on September 20, 2011

Update, because I have just been educated -- now I know regular DVDs can be played on a Blu-Ray. But I have no doubt that there's Blu-Ray owners who will want to upgrade to "Star Wars" on Blu-Ray, just 'cause it's there, and because it's the new thing.
posted by Rash at 1:26 PM on September 20, 2011