# Blu-Ray



## dask (May 10, 2019)

Now that I finally have a Blu-Ray player the question is are Blu-Ray prints (or transfers) always better than the original DVD? I read some reviews that didn't like the treatment a particular movie got on Blu-Ray.


----------



## Abernovo (May 10, 2019)

Not always. It depends (among other things) upon the standard of the original stock they're working from, and the quality of any remastering that's done.

If they can work from good quality, original master tapes, which have been kept well, there's likely to be a good picture quality on the Blu-Ray. But some films were made on a budget, using older cameras, or poorer lighting, and others have not been preserved well -- there have also been a few fires which have destroyed master tapes. And, of course, some films are just old, and were made to different specifications.

Like many things, it varies from disc to disc. That said, I've seen some poor reviews for some Blu-Rays, which I've then watched, and thought were fine. In general, I like what I've seen on Blu-Ray. I still watch some stuff on DVD, though, and some films have never been released on Blu-Ray. Not sure if that ramble helps.


----------



## picklematrix (May 10, 2019)

I prefer Alien on DVD. It's harder to see what's going on in the background, which adds to it I find. The blueray shows everything in perfect clarity, but leaves it a little sterilised without the film grain and blotchy shadows.
That's the only film I've really compared and contrasted on both dvd and blueray.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity (May 11, 2019)

It's the rare Blu-Ray transfer that's not better than the DVD version. It's happened occasionally with distastrous responses from reviewers and enthusiasts, sometimes resulting in a whole new transfer and re-release. _Patton_ is a classic example of this. _Hatari_ looks like garbage and should be remastered...again. I was watching _Chicago_ and thinking it looked weak - that's been re-released and looks great. Burton's _Batman_ from 1989 is being remastered and packaged with a 4K disc this summer - and it needed it. But most of these ltitles looked much better than the DVD version by far.

Abernovo is right about the quality of the print. The film gods are capricious here. A top-notch print of _Forbidden Planet _doesn't seem to be found. It didn't look as good as _Queen of Outer Space_ (also from MGM) on Laserdisc and DVD. Same with_ This Island Earth _which will be out on Blu-Ray this summer, and I'm sure the picture quality will mop the floor with _Forbidden Planet_. Sad, but true.

Blu-Ray reproduces a higher definition standard, so prints have to be cleaned and carefully mastered, otherwise it will reveal flaws that couldn't be seen on DVD. Anything filmed on 70mm negative looks fantastic on Blu-Ray. The restoration of the 35mm 60s Bond catalog is jaw-dropping.

Good luck with your wallet.


----------

