Universal & Paramount's HUGE Catalogs HD-DVD has 43% of titilesavaliable just from those studios.

Many catalog titles score high in video quality in reviews because the
reviewers are looking at how clean the transfer from the source is,
the existence of artifacts, haloing, etc. In most cases, however, this
only results in a clean print that still looks like a movie produced a
long time ago. In these cases, 99% of consumers will just buy the DVD
version if they haven't already.


This is something I'm wondering about and I suppose I won't know until I
see it for myself, but are movies from 30 years ago (for example,
Superman: The Movie) really gonna look any better than they did on dvd?


--
NiGHTS/Nightcrawler [mWo]
I feel asleep!

"If Gods so ****in' perfect why'd he **** up on you?"

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:23:28 +0000, ??????
wrote:

This is something I'm wondering about and I suppose I won't know until I
see it for myself, but are movies from 30 years ago (for example,
Superman: The Movie) really gonna look any better than they did on dvd?

Anything shot on film will look better in HD as long as the film is in
good shape. If it was shot on video it depends on the quality of the
original.

In alt.games.video.xbox ?????? wrote:

This is something I'm wondering about and I suppose I won't know until I
see it for myself, but are movies from 30 years ago (for example,
Superman: The Movie) really gonna look any better than they did on dvd?

They COULD if they're remastered into the new resolution. The only reason
this would be possible is if they did it from the original film print, as
opposed to a video master (which some early DVDs used for their material)

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

In article ,
Doug Jacobs wrote:
In alt.games.video.xbox ??????
wrote:

This is something I'm wondering about and I suppose I won't know until I
see it for myself, but are movies from 30 years ago (for example,
Superman: The Movie) really gonna look any better than they did on dvd?

They COULD if they're remastered into the new resolution. The only reason

You guys might enjoy this article on remastering Blade Runner:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...d-is-made.html
--
vince
/***** Visit the Home of the Rancid Tofu Experience *****/
/***** http://www.garageband.com/artist/rancidtofu *****/
/***** New Songs Added 12-21-2007 *****/

"夜クãƒ*ーラー" wrote in message
...
Many catalog titles score high in video quality in reviews because the
reviewers are looking at how clean the transfer from the source is,
the existence of artifacts, haloing, etc. In most cases, however, this
only results in a clean print that still looks like a movie produced a
long time ago. In these cases, 99% of consumers will just buy the DVD
version if they haven't already.


This is something I'm wondering about and I suppose I won't know until I
see it for myself, but are movies from 30 years ago (for example,
Superman: The Movie) really gonna look any better than they did on dvd?


No problem if the elements of the film are in good condition or have gone
through restoration. In fact, an argument can be made that films from that
era might actually look better than today's material. SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE
was shot in Panavision which used much more negative area in the 35mm frame
than a Super 35 production like NATIONAL TREASURE II using half the negative
area and probably going through a 2K scan for a digital intermediate. Many
films from the 50's and 60's were shot with larger negatives on slow film
stock and look gorgeous. I recently saw in HD Alfred Hitchcock's TROUBLE
WITH HARRY which was filmed in 8 perf VistaVision. It is just drop dead
goregous and could have been filmed yesterday.

The 40's was the heyday of Black and White and material from that area
transfers nicely to HD as well.

Morgan

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:55:21 GMT, in Technicolor®
wrote:

I recently saw in HD Alfred Hitchcock's TROUBLE
WITH HARRY which was filmed in 8 perf VistaVision. It is just drop dead
goregous and could have been filmed yesterday.

The 40's was the heyday of Black and White and material from that area
transfers nicely to HD as well.

Morgan

I don't see it available anywhere in HD.

It is a favorite of mine, and Hitchcock's only comedy. I would want
that in a HD format.


Musta been viewed as upconverted, I don't see it in any HD library.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Jer wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:55:21 GMT, in Technicolor®
wrote:

I recently saw in HD Alfred Hitchcock's TROUBLE WITH HARRY which was
filmed in 8 perf VistaVision. It is just drop dead goregous and
could have been filmed yesterday.

The 40's was the heyday of Black and White and material from that
area transfers nicely to HD as well.

Morgan

I don't see it available anywhere in HD.

It is a favorite of mine, and Hitchcock's only comedy. I would want
that in a HD format.

Musta been viewed as upconverted, I don't see it in any HD library.

The Trouble With Harry recently aired on the HDNet Movie channel as
part of a Hitchcock movie theme month or months. HDNet Movies aired
about 10 Hitchcock movies all in HD and in OAR. Rear Window showed some
signs of age with some not quite pristine shots, but it was an early
widescreen movie from 1954. But that is quibbling as it generally looked
very good. Vertigo, Psycho and the Birds looked excellent in HD.

Many more movies have been remastered in HD than have been released on
Blu-ray or HD-DVD. And old TV shows for that matter. Catalog sales have
been poor for the two formats, so the studios are obviously waiting for
the total HD media market to grow before spending the money to package a
lot of catalog titles. Meanwhile, a number of the older titles show up
on HDNet Movies and other HD movie channels.

Alan F

Alan F wrote:
Jer wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:55:21 GMT, in Technicolor®
wrote:

I recently saw in HD Alfred Hitchcock's TROUBLE WITH HARRY which was
filmed in 8 perf VistaVision. It is just drop dead goregous and
could have been filmed yesterday.

The 40's was the heyday of Black and White and material from that
area transfers nicely to HD as well.

Morgan

I don't see it available anywhere in HD.

It is a favorite of mine, and Hitchcock's only comedy. I would want
that in a HD format.

Musta been viewed as upconverted, I don't see it in any HD library.

The Trouble With Harry recently aired on the HDNet Movie channel as
part of a Hitchcock movie theme month or months. HDNet Movies aired
about 10 Hitchcock movies all in HD and in OAR. Rear Window showed some
signs of age with some not quite pristine shots, but it was an early
widescreen movie from 1954. But that is quibbling as it generally looked
very good. Vertigo, Psycho and the Birds looked excellent in HD.

Many more movies have been remastered in HD than have been released on
Blu-ray or HD-DVD. And old TV shows for that matter. Catalog sales have
been poor for the two formats, so the studios are obviously waiting for
the total HD media market to grow before spending the money to package a
lot of catalog titles. Meanwhile, a number of the older titles show up
on HDNet Movies and other HD movie channels.

Alan F



Okay, the studios have already done their 2K or 4K scans, and the only
thing left (for us) is a DVD release. In the meantime, they use the new
HD flavor for cable/sat distributions. Makes cents.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:06:24 GMT, Alan F
wrote:

Musta been viewed as upconverted, I don't see it in any HD library.
The Trouble With Harry recently aired on the HDNet Movie channel as
part of a Hitchcock movie theme month or months. HDNet Movies aired
about 10 Hitchcock movies all in HD and in OAR. Rear Window showed some
signs of age with some not quite pristine shots, but it was an early
widescreen movie from 1954. But that is quibbling as it generally looked
very good. Vertigo, Psycho and the Birds looked excellent in HD.

720... maybe Won't be any better than that from a pipe.
Many more movies have been remastered in HD than have been released on
Blu-ray or HD-DVD.

Yes, and they are only worth putting onto one of those formats. Being
sent over satellite after who know how much retarded compression and
degradation of sound quality mean it will be at who know what true
resolution?

No, HDNet Movies is a full bandwidth 1080i channel. With Verizon
FiosTV, I get the channel as HDNet sends it out. The average data rate
has been measured as 17 to 18 Mb/sec with a peak of 19 Mb/sec. Nothing
"720" about it. Yes, DirecTV down-rezzes and over-compresses HDNet
Movies, but that is because it is on their very compressed MPEG-2
satellite feed. DirecTV will probably move it to or simulcast it on
their new HD satellite when they launch it in the next few months
(assuming it makes it to orbit). But I don't get DirecTV.

And old TV shows for that matter. Catalog sales have
been poor for the two formats, so the studios are obviously waiting for
the total HD media market to grow before spending the money to package a
lot of catalog titles.

I love it when these bent perception dopes come in talking about what
the studios want or are doing. What you say here is pure speculation.

"bent perception dopes"? Not that much speculation, it is well known
that the studios have been busy remastering many older movies and TV
shows in HD. Doesn't take a genius to figure they eventually plan to
release many of them on disk, although they may go for a pay cable and
paid download run first to maximize their return.

Meanwhile, a number of the older titles show up
on HDNet Movies and other HD movie channels.

And are not HD after they get through degrading it before it gets sent
to you.

I'm curious, do you even get HDNet Movies? Yes, the movies will look
better on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, especially on a quality large 1080p
screen, but 1080i HDNet Movies is HD. Do you even understand the
difference between 1080/60i for a 24 fps film source with 3:2 pulldown
and 1080/24p?

Alan F

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:54:02 GMT, Alan F
wrote:


No, HDNet Movies is a full bandwidth 1080i channel. With Verizon
FiosTV, I get the channel as HDNet sends it out.


I say BULL****!

It may be 1080i, but it's heavily compressed, far more then on a HD DVD or
Blu-Ray, and not 1080P, and same goes for the Audio, not to mention and of
the Extra's that are on the disc's that you don't get when you download or
stream a movie. It's even worse on Cable and Satellite. There's only so
much Bandwidth. Do you want better Quality Movies to watch, or more HD
Channels to watch?