Why do a lot of older movies look bad on blu ray?

Tools    





Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Basically some movies on blu ray, look terrible. For example, I bought Predator (1987) on blu ray and the movie looks all faded, with a heavy lair of grain over any scenes, with shadowy lighting.

But I bought Goldfinger on Blu ray, and it looks fantastic.

I watched Blade Runner: The Final Cut, and it looks really good, but if you compare it to Blade Runner: The Director's Cut, that one has a lot more grain, and it looks like all the contrast was sucked out, compared to The Final Cut, giving it a very faded look.

I could give more examples, but maybe you get the idea? I was so disappointed in my Predator blu ray, I wonder if there is a better looking blu ray version out there. What do you think of this?



The most loathsome of all goblins
Grain is not necessarily a bad thing, it means the transfer doesn't feature a lot of unnecessary digital noise reduction that gives the film an uncanny valley effect. Compare the grainy Predator blu-ray to the Ultimate Hunter Edition, and you'll see what I mean. If you prefer the latter over the former, I don't even know what to tell you.

That said, it really depends on the transfer and the source material. I've seen more modern films that look mediocre on blu-ray, and yet there are films from the 1930's that look absolutely fantastic, like Gone With the Wind.



It's because some Blu-Rays of older movies are scanned from the print of the film and not the original negative. The original negative will contain much more information than a print made from it. Grain is often associated with digital scans made from the print.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Okay thanks. I haven't seen the Ultimate Hunter Edition of Predator, but will watch it to compare. So if the grainy un-polished look is more natural and better, than why do so many people favor The Final Cut of Blade Runner, to the Director's Cut then?



The most loathsome of all goblins
Okay thanks. I haven't seen the Ultimate Hunter Edition of Predator, but will watch it to compare. So if the grainy un-polished look is more natural and better, than why do so many people favor The Final Cut of Blade Runner, to the Director's Cut then?
Besides the fact that the "director's cut" was made without Ridley Scott's involvement, additional footage was added that improves the film's atmosphere, as well as some of the more violent parts of the International cut. Some scenes were altered to make them closer to Scott's vision, and a few special effects and stunt shots were re-touched to make the wires and doubles invisible.

But also, yes, the final cut does look better in high definition. I mentioned that the grainy look is not necessarily bad, however that doesn't mean a better transfer isn't possible. Sometimes the grain can be eliminated gracefully, it depends on the vault elements available.



Grain is actually part of the detail. If you start scrubbing grain away (as it's practiced often by some big studios to prep for a sharp blu ray release) then you're really wiping off the detail. Sometimes it's good to see a nice bit of fur on your transfers.

Take The Burbs'. The Burbs' got a great transfer from Arrow Films, but you'll always see some grain in low light like at the Klopek's house.

Criterion does good grain management and usually pristine transfers. MGM does good work, too. Though they use a lot of dated masters (versions used for previous dvd's - still "technically HD" but not captured with current equipment which renders better.) Dvd's are not HD, they are standard def, but are taking an HD source most of the time.

Blu rays, same thing, except with a BD you get the full experience, an actual HD presentation, instead of a 480 lines of resolution in SD. Standard Definition.

Anyway, I'm babbling..badly.

Grain is good. Scanner noise isn't always great but any noise, whether grain or just..well..noise - can help soak up some compression artifacting like oil slick banding swirlies. When you see a movie logo that is circular, sometimes you see the circle spread out like bands (think Loony Toons logo "that's all folks!" - that big circle with porky pig or bugs bunny in the center..it has many bands making the circle up)..it's an ugly digital artifact that pops up a lot, even on good, healthy, large sized blu rays. Might even be inherent on HDTV's.

Sorry, got way off track.

Hello?!

Echo, echo-cho.cho.cho



Okay thanks. I haven't seen the Ultimate Hunter Edition of Predator, but will watch it to compare. So if the grainy un-polished look is more natural and better, than why do so many people favor The Final Cut of Blade Runner, to the Director's Cut then?
You may end up preferring the Hunter Edition of Predator. They really cleaned the grain out a lot. It's not what the actual film looks like, but it's more in line with how blu ray companies advertise the technology=pristine, sharp, bright, pops with color, etc.

Films on the other hand are often shot a bit on the flat side, and older films especially because the lenses may be anamorphic which softens the image, films usually come with ample grain (esp in low lighted scenes - the more light that enters the camera lens, the less noise/grain you will see because the light gets soaked in the film and fills all those particles up with exposure). Blu rays that faithfully reproduce what the film looked like in theaters are more for film purists. Soft lensed features, etc. In the HD blu ray world, many companies still use sharpening which takes that older soft look and pops it into a more seemingly modern aesthetic. But, this doesn't usually look good at all. It's a trick.

Heavy scrubbing, edge sharpening, contrast boosting, color saturation..all of these tools are used to make a blu ray presentation more larger than life. Not always an honest practice but...whatever looks better to your eyes wins, period.

Predator UHE might be the ticket. But, films (35mm and up) are inherently HD...the hdtv blu ray name of hd just means tv's and home media have finally caught up to the 35mm format and the quality inherent in that format.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Okay thanks. I checked out the Ultimate Hunter Edition, and it technically looks better. I don't mind the grain on older movies, but there is something about some of them, that doesn't look good. Like for example, all the old James Bond movies look good, did they do more of a clean up on those, such as they did with the Ultimate Hunter Edition? The Bond movies still have some grain, but there is a crispness to the grain that looks better, compared to the original Predator Blue Ray, which has a flat grainy look in comparison.

I kind of understand what people are saying that the new Blade Runner, and the new Predator are not natural to the original look of movie, artistically. But... if the originals are just not as well preserved as other older movies, so perhaps if they are not as well preserved, some clean up is justified do you think?

Blade Runner, the director's cut looks great on DVD, but on an HDTV, you start to see all the imperfections, a lot more, so maybe it has to be cleaned up in order to look good in HD?



Okay thanks. I checked out the Ultimate Hunter Edition, and it technically looks better. I don't mind the grain on older movies, but there is something about some of them, that doesn't look good. Like for example, all the old James Bond movies look good, did they do more of a clean up on those, such as they did with the Ultimate Hunter Edition? The Bond movies still have some grain, but there is a crispness to the grain that looks better, compared to the original Predator Blue Ray, which has a flat grainy look in comparison.
Yap, sometimes they scrub the noise and some grain, clean up the specs and tears, dirt, etc..and then re-apply a very fine grain in post. Other times the grain is already tight and furry. The blotchy grain that is clumpy ..I'm not sure how that happens. My best guess is that it's either scanner noise introduced in an older transfer on the telecine, compression artifacts in gradient areas of the scene (lighter source fading into a darker area with less light), or it's the quality of the film stock itself. It could also be the lighting situation and a combo of other things mentioned above. Bond pictures were always endowed with budget and even if the film was in so so shape, those catalog titles are huge money makers and the transfers from UA, etc are usually intensive for the collectors since Bond is a staple in cinema.

Predator, sadly not so much.

But yes, that crispness is a sign of a good transfer and bitrate on your disc. Healthy bitrate being usually between 30mbps to 50 mbps. Criterion has lots of crispy grained movies, as does Kino Lorber and Arrow. It's toit..like a toiger.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Predator has a huge fan base though, so I thought it would get similar treatment. Basically when it comes to Blade Runner: The Final Cut, I like how they cleaned it up, but not sure if I like how they add the blue and green tint, and up the contrast to such an extreme degree. Like I like the clean up, but not sure if I like changing the actual original look, if that make sense.