It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
@boldfinger I have to agree; although there is an upgrade in quality with Blu-ray, I haven't found the difference enough to make a complete switch of formats. If anything it's the titles I already own and really enjoy I could see myself getting on Blu-ray. That includes Bond of course, but buying yet another complete set… well, I might just wait until the next time they release one.
My TV is also "just" 40" – and must be 12 years or more now; never going to get the complete Bly-ray experience on that. On top of that, I tend to watch more and more on my laptop for some reason.
Good point. Unlike when DVD took over for VHS, you now have two formats releasing the same content for years. DVD's being cheaper has definitely been a factor for some of my purchases too – especially when buying films on a whim, or films you're not sure are good enough to justify purchasing on a more expensive format (even though the difference in price is minimal in some cases).
Don't think they do, tbh. Physical formats are probably becoming something for those of us that are interested in having a physical copy of the films we purchase – and of course, owning copies of films that are unlikely to be available to download digitally or to stream.
It's the same thing with buying music on CD or vinyl too.
Average, no. It would seem that streaming is the future and physical media is only for those of us who care about the difference in quality.
No I certainly won't be converting my Blu-ray collection whole over to 4K. Like @Creasy47 said he's only buying those films that really stand out from the rest and will definitely benefit from the upgrade.
Though I think once you acclimatize to HD going back to SD is glaringly noticeable.
Fair enough if you aren't going to upgrade to a better TV to HD or 4K but the upscale is genuine.
I personally want to see films in the best possible resolution and I totally disagree that a great film is enjoyable equally on VHS or DVD to Blu-ray or 4k.
You are telling me I'm going to enjoy a SD Lawrence of Arabia over the Blu-ray or a forthcoming 4K release?
When it's down to the visual aspect, the effect of seeing that image, being swept up in the experience of witnessing those scenes but I argue if you go there and get used it and recognize and how could you not, you are never going back to DVD ever again.
Yes you might still watch your existing collection but you certainly aren't buying future titles on the format unless it's your only option, the Bond Blu-ray's despite some issues here and there wipe the floor with the UE DVD's.
I won't be upgrading all the series to 4K as a boxset will be a ridiculous price but I will buy the 4K DC titles and OHMSS but after that I don't think I'll be bothering unless some of those top 10 previous era titles are that much of an up tick over the existing Blu-ray versions.
Yes I also am a vinyl fan and yes it wipes the floor with streaming.
As long as it's there physically I'm buying it and 4K Blu-ray for me is another step along the way which I will indulge but not commit to wholly.
There is a world of difference between DVD and Blu-ray.
I bought several recent films I already had on DVD also on BR, because I was curious what differences I would see. I used a 32" tv set and a standart BR player. I could see small improvements in movements, where the DVD would be a bit blurry in places. I only noticed this when I directly compared the two formats, never when I watched a DVD alone. When I hit "Pause" and watched a still, I couldn´t see differences. Every tiny little hair or piece of lint was equally sharply visible.
Which makes me wonder about the Bond BRs. Because someone in this thread I think mentioned that they were the same restorations and masters used for the UE DVD. But those two versions look totally different. Why would the same master look so different on the two formats, when contemporary films look more or less the same, if it´s not because they after all did some additional treatment for the BR release they didn´t do for the UE DVDs?
Which brings me to @Shardlake´s question: It all depends on how well the film is restored or otherwise prepared. I watched the latest version of Apocalypse Now in the cinema, and I don´t find it superior to the restauration they did for the Redux version. Colours and sound were worked on, yes, it´s clearly visible and audible. But it´s not better.
Resolution is not everything that makes a film. I hugely enjoy seeing films in the cinema. I would say BRs have a sharper picture, but I would still prefer cinema.
I agree with you on LOA. I watched it on BR, and I would never watch any older version again.
I bought Manhunter on BR when it came out and was hugely disappointed. While it is true that a lot of details I only peripherally noticed on the DVD jumped at me on the BR, the colours were so reduced that the BR almost feels like a b/w film in comparison to the 80s neon rush of the DVD.
Predator. No need to spend many words on that case.
Not all of them were the same restorations and masters. The first batch of Bond blu-rays that came out in 2008 and 2009 were from the same masters used on UE DVD (DN, FRWL, GF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, FYEO, LTK, TWINE, DAD). TB was the exception, probably due to the UE having some errors (most notable was the pool not turning red after Largo had his henchman tossed to the sharks).
Then there was a three year wait for more blu-ray releases because MGM was having its own financial issues. Finally in 2012 the remaining films came out on blu-ray for the first time (YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, TSWLM, OP, AVTAK, TLD, GE, TND). As far as I could tell, the only ones of that batch that used the same master as the UE DVDs were OP, AVTAK, TLD, and TND. The master for GE must have been an older one because of the apparent DNR, as the UE master was badly cropped and the image looked duller. YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, and TSWLM were given new remasters, which I thought was a notable improvement over the UE DVD remasters.
All that said, for the most recent 4K transfers there had to be new remasters done. Back in 2005 only the first eight films were originally remastered at 4K, and the remaining films were simply cleaned up from their existing video masters (which is why later films like TND don't really have much of a leap between DVD and blu-ray). Why did they only do the first eight? 1) Scanning at 4K was much more expensive 15 years ago than today, so they had to be selective. 2) They only gave such treatment to the oldest films given they required more clean up than later installments. That's not to say the later films didn't look great remastered then. The UE DVD of TLD looked like a massive improvement over the original SE DVD, but that was fine for then, and this is now.
So that called for new remasters, especially for later films. I haven't had too much time to watch all of them yet via iTunes, but going by the fact that A VIEW TO A KILL now looks much truer to its original theatrical presentation than both the UE DVD and blu-ray, I suspect all the other films have gotten the same treatment.
But it´s possible I never saw any of the older films on UE DVD. And since I bought the BR collection, I felt no need for watching the SE DVD either.
Now the overall image is much sharper on the Lowery restoration, but the colors aren't accurate to the cinematic prints, IMO.
Also, Lowery adjusted the shot as Bond and Kara are being escorted away from the plane. There was a boom mike waved in front of Dalton and d'Abo as they passed. That shot has been zoomed in to obscure the mike. I personally don't like such changes and prefer the films in their original content, flaws and all.
I used to believe that was the case, but in fact the UE is actually more faithful to the theatrical version. Changing the sunrise from dark amber to a golden hue was actually only done for the late 90s VHS and SE DVDs. So to give credit, TLD is one of the few films Lowry not only got right but corrected.
Probably because his films sell the best, given he's popular and is the current Bond. All other Bond 4Ks will likely come in time for NTTD.
The 1988 CBS/Fox Home Video VHS version had the golden sunrise, as did the MGM/UA Home video 1992 remastered edition. The '92 remastered version was quite a bit sharper, though.
That hue is also evident on the 1987 HAPPY ANNIVERSARY 007 special. The Blu-ray and Lowery DVD for TLD contains the version of that special which includes the sunrise shot and that's exactly the way the film looked on earlier VHS releases and the cinematic prints I saw. For that I'm only going by memory. I'd love to see it in the cinema again on 35mm. Now I'm more curious than ever.
The HAPPY ANNIVERSARY 007 seems to have utilized the CBS/Fox Home Video transfers for all of it's clips.
Wonder if you could post a comparison? I just looked at the clip from the 25th anniversary special and the sunrise clip was pretty vibrant. Very rich in color. I remember seeing the old CBS/Fox laser disc years ago. Although it was pan and scan the colors looked very close to the cinematic version.
http://www.the007dossier.com/007dossier/post/2016/07/01/James-Bond-in-Glorious-Technicolor
The Blu-ray looks color timed a bit too much on magenta side in that comparison. I'd always prefer the 35mm Technicolor version even though that copy looks a bit scratchy. Of those comparisons I'd say the SE DVD looks the closest to the print. Pity about the framing, though.
Back in the days of VHS and tube televisions with knobs for settings I was pretty obsessed on picture quality. I'd see an early Bond film in the cinema and immediately upon returning home be at my set adjusting the tint and colors to the way it looked on screen. I remember seeing a clean print of SUPERMAN THE MOVIE and then using my Warners VHS tape to get the tint right on Reeve's cape.
If I still were watching movies on that old set I'd take that LaserDisc of DR NO, or the SE DVD, enhance the sharpness a titch, and tweak the tint so it's not as magenta and Connery looks more tanned.
I could still do that with the hi def TV I have now, but just prefer choosing from the preset options.
I’ll get to that soon. I’ll also record VHS FOX/CBS for screencaps as well.
Here's screenshots of the TLD sunrise shot. For sources: Both captures of the 1988 CBS/FOX VHS and 1992 MGM LD were dubbed via Sony RDR-VXD655 VHS-DVD Recorder. The MGM 2000 DVD is just a straight up screenshot on my desktop PC, the blu-ray provided via Screenmusings.com (which I used as the basis to have every screencap at nearly the exact frame at pause) and then a screencap of 4K iTunes on my desktop PC.
I sold my UE DVD long ago, so I couldn't provide a screencap of that but it should be close to the formats that came after. I couldn't find my late 90s MGM VHS P&S copy, but to my memory it had the same color timing as the 2000 DVD, so take that for what it's worth.
Anyway, here's all the grabs...
1988 CBS/FOX VHS
1992 MGM LD
2000 MGM DVD
2012 FOX BD
2017 iTunes 4K
This is all very interesting to look at not just in terms of color timing but also exposure, as the brightness of the sun varies from format to format. If we're using the VHS and LD as a close reference to how the film looked theatrically, then the 2000 DVD veered toward the golden hue.
However, I didn't forget your citing of the 007 Silver Anniversary special, so I looked into that and you're correct in that it looked much closer to the 2000 DVD.
Happy Anniversary 007 TV Special (1987)
Looking at all these different transfers, I think the LD serves as the best middle ground of all. But when it comes down to it, which color grading is most accurate to what was featured in cinema in 1987? Looking at the 1988 VHS, it's clear now Lowry didn't just pull that color timing out of their arse when remastering the film back in 2005. Perhaps there were two different prints back then?
Wow! Thanks for posting those. My memory of those tapes is way off, then.
Maybe I'm so use to that clip from the anniversary special? I was looking at some scenes from the 1998 VHS and the color timing isn't quite as rich I remembered either.
Funny how on that first U.S. edition, the gunbarrel and title sequences are widescreen. The rest of the film is not.
I'm tempted to go back and collect some of the Bonds on VHS for nostalgia. I still have a few of the CBS/Fox tapes.
Thanks again, @MakeshiftPython .