What Have You Bought Recently?

[keirarts]

I just think a lot of fans get a bit too 'eager' to see everything on blu-ray. This film looked totally fine on dvd with upscale. I still suspect dvd is the best home for films like this.

[PaulD]

Originally Posted by keirarts

I just think a lot of fans get a bit too 'eager' to see everything on blu-ray. This film looked totally fine on dvd with upscale. I still suspect dvd is the best home for films like this.

It would look better on bluray though, if it had been transferred properly. I agree, a lot of low-budget cult stuff looks great on upscaled dvd. but it would still look better in HD.

The screenshots I saw of the Deadly Spawn had more detail in the dvd due to the smeary waxiness of the DNRed bluray transfer.

[keirarts]

Again, sounds about right, still, i'm still unconvinced by the merits of blu-ray for everyfilm but i'll certainly give them a try. I still wonder if the wrong format came out on top as it would be interesting to see this stuff on hddvd!

[the blob]

Originally Posted by keirarts

Again, sounds about right, still, i'm still unconvinced by the merits of blu-ray for everyfilm but i'll certainly give them a try. I still wonder if the wrong format came out on top as it would be interesting to see this stuff on hddvd!

Theoretically there shouldn't be a difference if the file size was small enough as it would have been the same encode on HD DVD probably.

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by keirarts

I just think a lot of fans get a bit too 'eager' to see everything on blu-ray. This film looked totally fine on dvd with upscale. I still suspect dvd is the best home for films like this.

Funny that, I heard the exact same argument back in the day that some films are best left on VHS as DVD shows up too much of the flaws in the film. If we all had that mindset, DVD would never have taken off and DVD would have been a relic of an unsuccessful past.

So, with all due respect, it's nonsense. Blu-ray doesn't even get close to the resolution of 35mm film, which is the original intended format for these cult movies. They weren't designed to be watched on small TV screens with low resolution, but were intended for theatrical projection, which I imagine showed up a hell of a lot more flaws than an HD presentation!

I particularly dislike this argument because it gives companies the impression that people don't want cult movies on BD, or that they're somehow not worthy to grace the BD format. Absolute rubbish. As a film fan I want the best presentation of my cult films, preferably on the Blu-ray format, as that's the best we have at present. If transferred and encoded properly, old films (even ones shot on the cheap, look at Evil Dead for one) can look stunning. Or do you think exploitation filmmakers were technically incompetent and deliberately shot badly photographed films? Maybe Raimi's early Dead films shouldn't be in HD because, well, you know, they're cheaply shot and only deserve a DVD release. Oh, and Arrow, stop restoring those cult films, they only deserve a DVD release. Fulci and Bava and Argento, well, they didn't really make good films (that IS the maintream opinion, just look up reviews from the 70's and 80's - in fact, I was reading an old genre mag that spent three pages trashing Argento and saying he'd essentially pissed away his career - this was in response to Suspiria or Deep Red, I forget which, and these were journalists who were supporting the genre industry) so don't give them the respect most people don't think they deserve.

When DVD was just picking up momentum, I spoke to loads of guys online who wouldn't forsake their VHS tapes as DVD made them look too 'clean' and no longer felt like grubby little exploitation films. Go figure. Now we're seeing the same thing again with BD.

Sorry....rant over....

[PaulD]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

Funny that, I heard the exact same argument back in the day that some films are best left on VHS as DVD shows up too much of the flaws in the film. If we all had that mindset, DVD would never have taken off and DVD would have been a relic of an unsuccessful past.

So, with all due respect, it's nonsense. Blu-ray doesn't even get close to the resolution of 35mm film, which is the original intended format for these cult movies. They weren't designed to be watched on small TV screens with low resolution, but were intended for theatrical projection, which I imagine showed up a hell of a lot more flaws than an HD presentation!

I particularly dislike this argument because it gives companies the impression that people don't want cult movies on BD, or that they're somehow not worthy to grace the BD format. Absolute rubbish. As a film fan I want the best presentation of my cult films, preferably on the Blu-ray format, as that's the best we have at present. If transferred and encoded properly, old films (even ones shot on the cheap, look at Evil Dead for one) can look stunning. Or do you think exploitation filmmakers were technically incompetent and deliberately shot badly photographed films? Maybe Raimi's early Dead films shouldn't be in HD because, well, you know, they're cheaply shot and only deserve a DVD release. Oh, and Arrow, stop restoring those cult films, they only deserve a DVD release. Fulci and Bava and Argento, well, they didn't really make good films (that IS the maintream opinion, just look up reviews from the 70's and 80's - in fact, I was reading an old genre mag that spent three pages trashing Argento and saying he'd essentially pissed away his career - this was in response to Suspiria or Deep Red, I forget which, and these were journalists who were supporting the genre industry) so don't give them the respect most people don't think they deserve.

When DVD was just picking up momentum, I spoke to loads of guys online who wouldn't forsake their VHS tapes as DVD made them look too 'clean' and no longer felt like grubby little exploitation films. Go figure. Now we're seeing the same thing again with BD.

Sorry....rant over....

Ah, thank you for saying that - you summed up my point better than I ever could in my 3 or so sentences earlier

[Daemonia]

And just to back it up my post above, here's some posts and articles whereby people are saying VHS is better...

DVD Versus VHS: The Surprising Truth

Are some horror movies better to watch on VHS than DVD? - BLOODY-DISGUSTING

Are DVDs really better than VHS ? - Yahoo! Answers

My favourite quote from that last page is this...

dvds are smaller and you can skip forward quick with them but they are easy to sratch and break also they are hard for some people to hold like elderly and people with disabilities

We should go back to VHS then, since they're hard for old or disabled people to handle...

And yes, I do consider saying that exploitation/horror films should remain on DVD and not make the transition to BD as silly as saying we should go back to VHS because....well....you know, old people and those with disabilities...

[the blob]

My favourite is this..

More things get edited out in the Dvd version compared to the Vhs one.

[PaulD]

There's some crazy quotes in some of those links, as old as they are!


I think we'd all agree that increasing advances in audio/visual technology are overall A Good Thing, as long as care is taken to preserve the integrity of the original 35mm film.

Basically, 35mm projection is best but the highest digital reproductions of Home Cinema will come close to competing with it. VHS nostalgia is just that, nostalgia. It has its place but it doesn't come close to replicating what the director would want the film to look like.

[Pete]

There are still people who refuse to upgrade from VHS