Buying the blu-ray version when you already have the DVD...

[Woochifer]

Also, I think you can get some indication on which BDs to buy by looking at which studio releases them.

In general, I think you can bank on any of the Pixar or classic Disney animation titles. Disney has done some stunning work with their transfers and painstaking restoration. A lot of their other titles feature repurposed audio mixes that are better optimized for home 5.1 setups.

You also have pretty good odds with the library titles from Warner. In addition to its own movies, Warner owns the rights to the classic MGM film library and other holdings that Turner acquired during the 80s and 90s. If you see a Warner BD title with a hardcover booklet packaging or with a long list of bonus features, this is one of their showcase releases and the odds good are that it's a stellar transfer. For their movie-only releases, the video quality can still be quite good, but you will find a lot of them selling for very low prices.

Universal and Paramount have the worst reputation for their BD releases. Indications are that a lot of their releases were done using older scans that looked fine with DVDs, but don't stand up very well in 1080p. Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits interviewed some of Universal's technical staff a couple of weeks ago, and it seems that they are now doing fresh scans for their BD releases. But, he speculates they still don't look as good as other releases because the masters are being scanned right at 1080p resolution (this is close to what's referred to as "2k" resolution). Other companies like Sony and Warner apparently archive their HD masters using 4k resolution or better, which comes closer to capturing all of the details from a 35mm print. Hunt thinks that the BD transfer will look better if it comes from a higher resolution scan, since the BD transfer involves a lot of data compression.

Sony and Fox have been more hit and miss. Both of them have done some excellent releases, but also botched their fair share as well. If you look at the Predator BD image captures from a previous thread, you'll see how Fox recently ruined that release.

In general, the BDs on newer releases from the last few years will look fine, because more and more of the post production is now done using a digital intermediary. This means that the the BD transfer will bypass the film scanning step altogether.

[pixelthis]

Also, I think you can get some indication on which BDs to buy by looking at which studio releases them.

In general, I think you can bank on any of the Pixar or classic Disney animation titles. Disney has done some stunning work with their transfers and painstaking restoration. A lot of their other titles feature repurposed audio mixes that are better optimized for home 5.1 setups.

You also have pretty good odds with the library titles from Warner. In addition to its own movies, Warner owns the rights to the classic MGM film library and other holdings that Turner acquired during the 80s and 90s. If you see a Warner BD title with a hardcover booklet packaging or with a long list of bonus features, this is one of their showcase releases and the odds good are that it's a stellar transfer. For their movie-only releases, the video quality can still be quite good, but you will find a lot of them selling for very low prices.

Universal and Paramount have the worst reputation for their BD releases. Indications are that a lot of their releases were done using older scans that looked fine with DVDs, but don't stand up very well in 1080p. Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits interviewed some of Universal's technical staff a couple of weeks ago, and it seems that they are now doing fresh scans for their BD releases. But, he speculates they still don't look as good as other releases because the masters are being scanned right at 1080p resolution (this is close to what's referred to as "2k" resolution). Other companies like Sony and Warner apparently archive their HD masters using 4k resolution or better, which comes closer to capturing all of the details from a 35mm print. Hunt thinks that the BD transfer will look better if it comes from a higher resolution scan, since the BD transfer involves a lot of data compression.

Sony and Fox have been more hit and miss. Both of them have done some excellent releases, but also botched their fair share as well. If you look at the Predator BD image captures from a previous thread, you'll see how Fox recently ruined that release.

In general, the BDs on newer releases from the last few years will look fine, because more and more of the post production is now done using a digital intermediary. This means that the the BD transfer will bypass the film scanning step altogether.

Actually Wrath of KHAN was quite good, as was the Abrams Trek, of course.
One thing not to consider is the DVD version, sometimes the Blu is better,
sometimes not, sometimes its hard to tell a difference between the two pics( the sound is almost always better).

[pixelthis]

OFF TOPIC for a minute, a small company tried to make a go of selling SVHS
pre-recorded videos, and I bought Wrath of Kahn. Great format for recording, but
the pre-recorded business was doomed.
But the TAPE was quite good, lacking the noise that plagued some of the recording,
and color saturation was fine, kinda between broadcast and laser in quality.

[Woochifer]

Actually Wrath of KHAN was quite good, as was the Abrams Trek, of course.
One thing not to consider is the DVD version, sometimes the Blu is better,
sometimes not, sometimes its hard to tell a difference between the two pics( the sound is almost always better).

Wrath of Khan got the full restoration treatment and a brand new scan, and the results show. For all the other Star Trek movies, Paramount simply recycled the HD masters used in the original DVD releases (these are the theatrical cuts that date back to 2000). Apparently, that's common practice for Paramount's BD releases, and that's why Trek III and IV look softer and lack the fine detail that's visible on Trek II.

This is an issue for any movie where the original source is scanned from 35mm film, since Blu-ray's higher resolution will reveal more flaws in an older HD scan originally done for DVD release. Paramount and Universal have a spottier track record with their BD releases than the other studios.

It's hard for Paramount to muff the new Star Trek movie, given that all of the post production work was done digitally, and Blu-ray was in the plans from the beginning.

[pixelthis]

Wrath of Khan got the full restoration treatment and a brand new scan, and the results show. For all the other Star Trek movies, Paramount simply recycled the HD masters used in the original DVD releases (these are the theatrical cuts that date back to 2000). Apparently, that's common practice for Paramount's BD releases, and that's why Trek III and IV look softer and lack the fine detail that's visible on Trek II.

This is an issue for any movie where the original source is scanned from 35mm film, since Blu-ray's higher resolution will reveal more flaws in an older HD scan originally done for DVD release. Paramount and Universal have a spottier track record with their BD releases than the other studios.

It's hard for Paramount to muff the new Star Trek movie, given that all of the post production work was done digitally, and Blu-ray was in the plans from the beginning.

I would say that I can't believe that they didn't redo first contact, but then again, the DVD version was nice.CERTAINLY makes sense to rescan Khan, its one of, if not the best of
the lot, IMHO.

[Woochifer]

I would say that I can't believe that they didn't redo first contact, but then again, the DVD version was nice.CERTAINLY makes sense to rescan Khan, its one of, if not the best of
the lot, IMHO.

The primary reason why they did the restoration work on Khan was because the negative was in a deteriorated condition. Star Trek: The Motion Picture already had some work done previously when the director's cut was created.