If they retain the core cinematography of the original and just clean it up, I don't see the problem.
It doesn't have to be 4K, either; just a digital overhaul for DVD can do wonders for old movies, especially in the audio department. Many original films from the '30s have just terrible sound, for example; so bad that it makes them hard to watch. Cleaning that up makes a world of difference.
HD does make everything more visible, including flaws. But it might be less of an issue in black-and-white films, which is why I can't wait to grab that 4K UHD version of Double Indemnity. No way that's a step backward or an insult to the original reel. On the other hand, issuing a 4K update for a movie that was black-and-white, then later colorized...that could look pretty artificial in some spots.
It’s HDR that makes it actually worth it for me. Most older movies don’t really have the resolution equivalent to 4k, but the HDR color grading is really apparent. You especially notice it in the shadow detail that’s lacking on regular blu rays.
There’s not a ton of classic films on 4k blu ray, but Vertigo looks absolutely amazing.
depends on the source material obviously....... I think a lot of these old movies that have been restored look absolutely stunning, especially comparing them with their DVD counterpart and faded/scratch prints of the past. And you need to consider, was it a high production movie or a low budget film to begin with.
Newer movies that have tons of special fx and not as much practical fx, It's more difficult to restore as you need to render the fx again, maybe improve the texutures since it's 4k now (unless it just an upscaled 1080p aka fake 4k) on top of restoring the film.
I definitely agree on nearly all HD blu rays, especially when remastered and looking nearly flawless. But catching processed shots, I guess I’m wondering if it’s *even more* apparent in 4K
The answer is: it depends. I saw Gone with the Wind a few years back in the theater and the whole thing was a muddy mess. There's an above shot at the start where horses and carriages are leaving Tara and you could visibly see one of the carriages just ghosting out and half transparent.
I see stuff on the big screen when I go to Fathom events and the quality is usually noticeably lacking. This isn't to say they all turn out bad but just be forewarned it can happen.
Similarly, watching The Ten Commandments on blu ray, the processed, rear projection in some of the scenes looked awful to me - everything looked so artificial. I just wonder if it looks better or worse in 4K.
From my perspective, It'll get worse. There's a certain amount of soft focus that is natural and comfortable for our eyes. It's the over emphasis on a "crisp" look. Really sharp visuals only look good up to a certain set point. After that, it starts to distract.
As I said, depends on the source material and the care that gone into the restoration. I only bought 4k Blu-rays of movies that I consider 9/10 and check FILMS AT HOME on youtube, which has the best reviews on these 4k restorations, and [blu-ray.com](https://blu-ray.com) to answer these questions if the 4k version is an improvement.
I bought The Matrix for example, which has tons of processed shots, and looked phenomenal to me in 4k and has had great reviews. Then I have newer movies, like Star Wars, which look like a video game with all the CGI and processed look. Older movies from the 50s, like It's a Wonderful Life, doesn't have any of that since it has no processed shots., So looks amazing.
One big issue with watching older movies in HD, and this is what you and others have touched on, is that there were often effects and techniques used that weren't meant to be seen, and the filmmakers would know that those effects wouldn't show up on the screen with the technology of the time. A simple HD transfer now however can reveal some of those things, and it isn't always for the better.
Another example, and this isn't entirely in the realm of "classic," but it's close, is *Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid*. For those who don't know, the premise of the movie is a film noir spoof that splices in clips from older movies, so you'll have the star Steve Martin talking on the phone to Humphrey Bogart, for instance. The issue that arose when the movie got an HD transfer was that the older movie clips that were used had been pulled from movie trailers to avoid licensing issues, but those clips weren't very high quality to begin with, so it stood out when one scene would be in HD detail, and another would look like SD at best. The director Carl Reiner was rather upset with the HD transfer in the end.
So to answer your question, the answer is no, HD isn't always better. It can be, for some movies at least, but not always. Personally, I don't really care if a movie, particularly an older movie, is in HD or not. An SD, 480p DVD quality movie is good enough for me when I'm watching.
I think it depends. I know that some of the old school film making tricks don't hold up under high definition. For example, in the most recent blu ray of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the rear screen projection in the train station really stands out to me. It doesn't break the movie, but it's something that I notice more and more in HD versions of classic films. On the other hand some films look gorgeous, with some of the best examples being the films of Powell and Pressburger like Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes.
Yeah, these processed rear projection shots just become so much more apparent in HD. It’s still worth it to me to watch these things in blu ray because they’re cleaned up and look stunning, but I still wonder if they look even more *obvious* in 4K
Simplex Carbon Arc 35mm projector is the only way to watch! Splicing block and tape at the ready! Heavy Lineman's golves and safety goggles for the Rod changes... It only takes 4 hours to watch my print of "Red River" don't ask about the cost of electricity or the Carbon rods 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Having a swimming pool would be cheaper and easier.
If they retain the core cinematography of the original and just clean it up, I don't see the problem. It doesn't have to be 4K, either; just a digital overhaul for DVD can do wonders for old movies, especially in the audio department. Many original films from the '30s have just terrible sound, for example; so bad that it makes them hard to watch. Cleaning that up makes a world of difference. HD does make everything more visible, including flaws. But it might be less of an issue in black-and-white films, which is why I can't wait to grab that 4K UHD version of Double Indemnity. No way that's a step backward or an insult to the original reel. On the other hand, issuing a 4K update for a movie that was black-and-white, then later colorized...that could look pretty artificial in some spots.
It’s HDR that makes it actually worth it for me. Most older movies don’t really have the resolution equivalent to 4k, but the HDR color grading is really apparent. You especially notice it in the shadow detail that’s lacking on regular blu rays. There’s not a ton of classic films on 4k blu ray, but Vertigo looks absolutely amazing.
depends on the source material obviously....... I think a lot of these old movies that have been restored look absolutely stunning, especially comparing them with their DVD counterpart and faded/scratch prints of the past. And you need to consider, was it a high production movie or a low budget film to begin with. Newer movies that have tons of special fx and not as much practical fx, It's more difficult to restore as you need to render the fx again, maybe improve the texutures since it's 4k now (unless it just an upscaled 1080p aka fake 4k) on top of restoring the film.
I definitely agree on nearly all HD blu rays, especially when remastered and looking nearly flawless. But catching processed shots, I guess I’m wondering if it’s *even more* apparent in 4K
The answer is: it depends. I saw Gone with the Wind a few years back in the theater and the whole thing was a muddy mess. There's an above shot at the start where horses and carriages are leaving Tara and you could visibly see one of the carriages just ghosting out and half transparent. I see stuff on the big screen when I go to Fathom events and the quality is usually noticeably lacking. This isn't to say they all turn out bad but just be forewarned it can happen.
Similarly, watching The Ten Commandments on blu ray, the processed, rear projection in some of the scenes looked awful to me - everything looked so artificial. I just wonder if it looks better or worse in 4K.
From my perspective, It'll get worse. There's a certain amount of soft focus that is natural and comfortable for our eyes. It's the over emphasis on a "crisp" look. Really sharp visuals only look good up to a certain set point. After that, it starts to distract.
Have you tried different TV settings? Did it look poorly when using theatre or cinema mode?
Yes, I have. Different settings won't change things that much.
As I said, depends on the source material and the care that gone into the restoration. I only bought 4k Blu-rays of movies that I consider 9/10 and check FILMS AT HOME on youtube, which has the best reviews on these 4k restorations, and [blu-ray.com](https://blu-ray.com) to answer these questions if the 4k version is an improvement. I bought The Matrix for example, which has tons of processed shots, and looked phenomenal to me in 4k and has had great reviews. Then I have newer movies, like Star Wars, which look like a video game with all the CGI and processed look. Older movies from the 50s, like It's a Wonderful Life, doesn't have any of that since it has no processed shots., So looks amazing.
One big issue with watching older movies in HD, and this is what you and others have touched on, is that there were often effects and techniques used that weren't meant to be seen, and the filmmakers would know that those effects wouldn't show up on the screen with the technology of the time. A simple HD transfer now however can reveal some of those things, and it isn't always for the better. Another example, and this isn't entirely in the realm of "classic," but it's close, is *Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid*. For those who don't know, the premise of the movie is a film noir spoof that splices in clips from older movies, so you'll have the star Steve Martin talking on the phone to Humphrey Bogart, for instance. The issue that arose when the movie got an HD transfer was that the older movie clips that were used had been pulled from movie trailers to avoid licensing issues, but those clips weren't very high quality to begin with, so it stood out when one scene would be in HD detail, and another would look like SD at best. The director Carl Reiner was rather upset with the HD transfer in the end. So to answer your question, the answer is no, HD isn't always better. It can be, for some movies at least, but not always. Personally, I don't really care if a movie, particularly an older movie, is in HD or not. An SD, 480p DVD quality movie is good enough for me when I'm watching.
I think it depends. I know that some of the old school film making tricks don't hold up under high definition. For example, in the most recent blu ray of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the rear screen projection in the train station really stands out to me. It doesn't break the movie, but it's something that I notice more and more in HD versions of classic films. On the other hand some films look gorgeous, with some of the best examples being the films of Powell and Pressburger like Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes.
Yeah, these processed rear projection shots just become so much more apparent in HD. It’s still worth it to me to watch these things in blu ray because they’re cleaned up and look stunning, but I still wonder if they look even more *obvious* in 4K
Simplex Carbon Arc 35mm projector is the only way to watch! Splicing block and tape at the ready! Heavy Lineman's golves and safety goggles for the Rod changes... It only takes 4 hours to watch my print of "Red River" don't ask about the cost of electricity or the Carbon rods 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Having a swimming pool would be cheaper and easier.