BluRay movies that weren't originally HiDef

[atgcpaul]

Someone please explain this to me. I just bought a BluRay player at Costco
and was looking at their Bluray movie selection. I noticed a lot of these
movies predate the whole Hidef/Bluray era. Some are even B&W from the
40s. So what advantage does putting that movie on Bluray give you over
the same movie on a regular DVD?

They also had the 5th Element on BluRay. I own the Superbit version of this
movie on DVD and it looked phenomenal on my old TV and DVD player.

Do these movies look better on Bluray even though they were shot on film
pre-digital and pre-Bluray? I think I read film is still one of the sharpest
mediums you can record images on, though.

I can't believe I'm so behind on the tech curve.

[LCHIEN]

Someone please explain this to me. I just bought a BluRay player at Costco
and was looking at their Bluray movie selection. I noticed a lot of these
movies predate the whole Hidef/Bluray era. Some are even B&W from the
40s. So what advantage does putting that movie on Bluray give you over
the same movie on a regular DVD?

They also had the 5th Element on BluRay. I own the Superbit version of this
movie on DVD and it looked phenomenal on my old TV and DVD player.

Do these movies look better on Bluray even though they were shot on film
pre-digital and pre-Bluray? I think I read film is still one of the sharpest
mediums you can record images on, though.

I can't believe I'm so behind on the tech curve.

Are you thinking somehow that the movies were originally filmed with VHS cam-corders?

OK, most of the hollywood movies were filmed using 35mm silver halide film and still are. In terms of resolution and grain size these are probably still way superior to Blue Ray. When they made DVDs, they simply digitized the original 35mm frames into DVD resolution and create a digital data file and then a disc.
When they decide to release a BR DVD of the same title, they take the original films and do the same process except they use more resolution, and the resulting disc they sell for more money even though it costs no more to mass produce. The transfer from analog 35mm to Digital is only done once so that cost is a relatively small expense amortized over all the copies sold.

The process to make DVDs is the same as for BR-DVDs except the BR resolution is greater. In early DVDs (and VHS) they actually cropped the 35mm frames to make it fit the old 4:3 frames.

I simplified it a little bit, they do some great amount of video processing to change the frame rates by supersampling and interpolating frames in between - but this is new/old tech used in creating videotapes for 25fps PAL and 30fps NTSC systems from original 24fps 35mm films.

I guess they'll continue to charge extra for the latest technology as they always have done (CDs were cheaper to produce than vinyl discs but CD's sold for a premium for just about forever). An extra 50% ($10 premium on a $20 movie) compared to the $17 for a audio CD compared to $14 on Vinyl.

[Cochese]

Depending on who is doing the transfer, it's done not at all of several times with varying results. It really depends on the studio. There have been movies that have undergone a different transfer to DVD, HD DVD and Blu. Some are good, some are really shitty. It pays to read the reviews on each one.

Wizard of Oz, for example, is beautiful. Gladiator is horrible. For the most part, the older movies really do benefit from a transfer, when done correctly.

[Cochese]

Also, if you're paying over $22 for your average BD, you're doing something wrong.

[woodturner]

When they decide to release a BR DVD of the same title, they take the original films and do the same process except they use more resolution, and the resulting disc they sell for more money even though it costs no more to mass produce.

Great description of the process, I just have a minor "nit" - the cost to make a BlueRay is higher than the cost to make a DVD. The materials are different (to provide the different light sensitivity) and better equipment is required to maintain the required resolution on the disk.

As a practical matter, the cost difference is minimal - we are paying for the IP, not the media, when we buy a disk.

This link summarizes the specification differences between the two technologies
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_vs_dvd_comparison

[BigguyZ]

Not all transfers are done directly from the 35mm film. Many times, they have created a master digital copy that multiple transfers can be made from.

If the disc says it's been re-mastered, that's when they've gone back to the original film. I agree that some companies do a better job than others. For instance, Criterion does a fantastic job restoring a film to it's original condition. You won't see many mainstream movies by Criterion however, as they usually go for arthouse movies that are deemed as being "important" to the history of film. Then again, they did do Armageddon, if I'm remembering correctly... I have 4 or 5 Criterion DVDs, but I haven't gotten any in Blu-ray yet.

[LCHIEN]

Great description of the process, I just have a minor "nit" - the cost to make a BlueRay is higher than the cost to make a DVD. The materials are different (to provide the different light sensitivity) and better equipment is required to maintain the required resolution on the disk.

As a practical matter, the cost difference is minimal - we are paying for the IP, not the media, when we buy a disk.

This link summarizes the specification differences between the two technologies
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_vs_dvd_comparison

a few years ago the materials and equipment for mass producing BR were probably more than for DVDs.

However, BR is pretty mature now.
I don't know exactly, but I'll bet the materials for a BR disc plus the imprinting process ( and commercial discs are stamped out like political buttons - in a second or two - and not burned ) and the box costs well under a dollar. A DVD cost is gong to be very similar not more than a few cents difference. For all practical purposes, considering the MSRP of a movie title, the costs are equal.

Now add probably another 50 cents for licensing to patent holders for lasers, the Sony Blue Ray process, Dolby, THX, etc for the sound encoding, and other companies who have patent rights for the technology used for all parts of the process. A DVD uses a bit less licensing than BR, but still needs the lasers, THX, Dolby etc. so maybe 40-45 cents.

Now add a couple of bucks to the studio royalties for the movie, then add 4 or 5 bucks for advertising, promotions (for a blockbuster type move, nearly zero promotion for classics and oldies), retail markup etc. and you have movie title that ran less than 10 bucks to produce and market.

They make a ton of money selling mainstream titles for $20 - I'll bet they clear nearly $10 or more.

Assuming I'm right that a BR only costs a few cents more than a DVD in production costs, selling BR for MSRP $25-30 is a whole bunch more added profit.

So even DVDs discounted to $10-15 and BRs discounted to $20 they are making lots and lots of profit.

How can they do this?
Just selling the real and perceived extra value of the high definition that they have carefully cultivated through the media and advertising and promotions.
Unlike other products, there are no generic "movies" although you can chose to watch another if the price is too high, but to some extent they have a monopoly because each movie is unique to some extent.

[Cochese]

a few years ago the materials and equipment for mass producing BR were probably more than for DVDs.

However, BR is pretty mature now.
I don't know exactly, but I'll bet the materials for a BR disc plus the imprinting process ( and commercial discs are stamped out like political buttons - in a second or two - and not burned ) and the box costs well under a dollar. A DVD cost is gong to be very similar not more than a few cents difference. For all practical purposes, considering the MSRP of a movie title, the costs are equal.

Now add probably another 50 cents for licensing to patent holders for lasers, the Sony Blue Ray process, Dolby, THX, etc for the sound encoding, and other companies who have patent rights for the technology used for all parts of the process. A DVD uses a bit less licensing than BR, but still needs the lasers, THX, Dolby etc. so maybe 40-45 cents.

Now add a couple of bucks to the studio royalties for the movie, then add 4 or 5 bucks for advertising, promotions (for a blockbuster type move, nearly zero promotion for classics and oldies), retail markup etc. and you have movie title that ran less than 10 bucks to produce and market.

They make a ton of money selling mainstream titles for $20 - I'll bet they clear nearly $10 or more.

Assuming I'm right that a BR only costs a few cents more than a DVD in production costs, selling BR for MSRP $25-30 is a whole bunch more added profit.

So even DVDs discounted to $10-15 and BRs discounted to $20 they are making lots and lots of profit.

How can they do this?
Just selling the real and perceived extra value of the high definition that they have carefully cultivated through the media and advertising and promotions.
Unlike other products, there are no generic "movies" although you can chose to watch another if the price is too high, but to some extent they have a monopoly because each movie is unique to some extent.

What exactly is the problem with this?

I buy my Blu-rays at around $16, and try not to spend more than $25 on anything. Most of my buys now are around the $10 range for catalog titles. New releases lately have been around $17-$18, if I want them.

When you consider a movie ticket these days is $10 and up per person, $15-$20 for a high definition movie with digital surround sound is a relative bargain. Especially for that $15-$20 I'm getting a HD movie, a digital download and a regular DVD included (because lately, all I've bought are Disney releases) for the kids to mistreat.

It's all what the market will bear. If they're making money, good for them.