Got it and SOTT on blu. Better quality for sure. But even amovie made in 1933 is going to look better on blu-ray. These movies were shot on better than HD film. Consumer HD is actually a step down from 35mm film. And 35mm film is what some of theoldest movies were shot on.

[Edited 2/23/15 16:45pm]

ufoclub said:

KingSausage said:

Man, I should have got that for myself for my birthday. Oh well, didn't know, didn't order it, and it didn't get here today.

.

Would have been a nice little gift.

.

I don't really want it enough to buy it for any other reason, especially if it's not much of an improvement over the DVD (which I haven't actually watched except for the bonuses--I'm apparently a really bad fan.)

.

Guess there's next year.

ufoclub said:

Got it and SOTT on blu. Better quality for sure. But even amovie made in 1933 is going to look better on blu-ray. These movies were shot on better than HD film. Consumer HD is actually a step down from 35mm film. And 35mm film is what some of theoldest movies were shot on.

[Edited 2/23/15 16:45pm]

You should say that it "has the potential" to look better on blu-ray. Just like with audio, it depends on what methods are used for the new HD master. Applying to much DNR makes blurays look horrible, just check out Predator. My DVD of that looks much better than my bluray.

That said, Purple Rain is an improvement over the DVD, but a good remaster with a new scan of the negative would be even better. Also, on a good sound system the bluray sounds much better than the DVD, but even that has room for improvement.

Bottom line, the blu is the best the movie has ever looked or sounded on home video but is not the best it could be if WB spent the time & money on a proper restoration.

In my not-so-humble opinion, of course...

EddieC said:

Man, I should have got that for myself for my birthday. Oh well, didn't know, didn't order it, and it didn't get here today.

.

Would have been a nice little gift.

.

I don't really want it enough to buy it for any other reason, especially if it's not much of an improvement over the DVD (which I haven't actually watched except for the bonuses--I'm apparently a really bad fan.)

.

Guess there's next year.

I made the jump to Bluray in 2011 and had every intention of waiting to upgrade PR to HD whenever the next inevitable anniversary rerelease came around. I had already purchased the movie twice on VHS (about wore out my first copy) twice on DVD (the first pan/scan release and the eventual widescreen anniversary rerelease) and wanted to avoid buying it twice on blu. Then I saw it at Best Buy for like $7 and couldn't pass it up that cheap. So, yeah, when the next anniversary release comes around I'll probably be buying it for the 6th time.

I'm a sucker...

ufoclub said:

Got it and SOTT on blu. Better quality for sure. But even amovie made in 1933 is going to look better on blu-ray. These movies were shot on better than HD film. Consumer HD is actually a step down from 35mm film. And 35mm film is what some of theoldest movies were shot on.

[Edited 2/23/15 16:45pm]

This is true, from a 35mm film the resolution could be anything between 4k-6k which is much higher than Blu-Ray.

ufoclub said:

Got it and SOTT on blu. Better quality for sure. But even amovie made in 1933 is going to look better on blu-ray. These movies were shot on better than HD film. Consumer HD is actually a step down from 35mm film. And 35mm film is what some of theoldest movies were shot on.

[Edited 2/23/15 16:45pm]

.

Dude, there are numerous "formats" when it comes to film (ever heard of Cinerama?). And converting those to a high-definition format (2K, 4K,...) is never an easy process, especially considering the physical state of plenty of them.

.

Also, not all movies were/are filmed on stock that is "better than BD". Primer for instance was filmed on 16mm.

djThunderfunk said:

Bottom line, the blu is the best the movie has ever looked or sounded on home video but is not the best it could be if WB spent the time & money on a proper restoration.

.

WB is hit & miss when it comes to BD; some of their work is exemplary, other times they once again repack an outdated master and sell it in a new pakage.

.

In the case of PR: don't get your hopes up. I doubt that movie brings in the big bucks. Considering they're not redoing far more popular movies despite them being re-released for anniversaries, I'd expect this to be the definitive home video release of PR. (Unless someone will throw a huge pile of money at WB to do a better version.)

I have it on HD-DVD, never mind all this modern blu-ray nonsense. I kick it old-school.

KingSausage said:

The PR blu-ray is marginally better than the DVD. It would be nice if it had received a fresh new transfer and restoration. But it's PR we're talking about here, not an actual good movie.

Not true, unless you consider a bit of loss of detail marginal. I don't.

[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/ufoclub/blu-ray2.jpg[/img:$uid] BLU

[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/ufoclub/DVD2.jpg[/img:$uid] DVD

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Dude, there are numerous "formats" when it comes to film (ever heard of Cinerama?). And converting those to a high-definition format (2K, 4K,...) is never an easy process, especially considering the physical state of plenty of them.

.

Also, not all movies were/are filmed on stock that is "better than BD". Primer for instance was filmed on 16mm.

Odd: bringing up even farther superior formats to the arguement that- on it's basic technical specs, 35mm film is better quality than consumer (1080p) HD , even for movies shot in the 20's or 30's. That kind of proves my arguement even further in terms of older movie like How The West Was Won or 2001 being much higher image quality than consumer HD.

PS, Cinerama is simply three 35mm frames in synced and "stitched" into one image.

Also the difficulty of a transfer process is an irrelevent factor to bring the to the table when I'm trying to dispell the false belief that HD resolution or currewnt 35mm film quality is superior to pre-90's movies.

Yes, people have shot features on Super-8 too, and 35mm film can also be shot with extremely high speed low light sensitive film resulting in heavy grain... but again, how does that warrant the fact that there is a false belief about movie image quality before the 90's? What percentage of narrative movies seen by the general public were historically NOT shot on 35mm film (anamorphic or not)?

Scotsman1999 said:

I have it on HD-DVD, never mind all this modern blu-ray nonsense. I kick it old-school.

Naw, you need a betamax to "kick it old-school"...