'Universal Classic Monsters: The Essential Collection' is coming October 2

[MrAngles]

Right, and ultimately the image size is the same overall, just a different shape. There's no different "requirement" in resolution.

[bruceames]

The Classic Monster Collection is actually the first DVD I ever bought. I picked it up at Costco for $140 + tax along with my first DVD player. The funny thing is that I only watched about 4 of them. I've also bought all six titles of Legacy Collection (or Legacy Series, it the one the has the sequels). I appreciate classic movie but the horror genre is my least favorite. If it was something I really loved and has reply value then I would likely rebuy it on Blu-ray. But as it is I've spent plenty on the monster movies.

And I would have to agree with Zetmoon about his points on not rebuying many of his DVDs, particularly the older, B&W ones in 1.33 aspect ratio. Most of these are from damaged prints, perhaps even several generations of duplication degration down the copying chain. Sure Blu-ray will look better, but generally not to the degree that a newer movie would.

As for film grain, BLu-ray actually accentuates it, rather than diminish, its "intrusion". Most people I know don't like film grain, and my wife thought the DVD version of The Third Man looks better than the BLu-ray for this very reason. I'm the exception however, and I do prefer the trade off of having more grain in order to have more fine detail.

[Dr Kain]

I'm from Holland and use the british version of the word: colour!

Really, hence the :-p below my post.

[Dr Kain]

And I would have to agree with Zetmoon about his points on not rebuying many of his DVDs, particularly the older, B&W ones in 1.33 aspect ratio. Most of these are from damaged prints, perhaps even several generations of duplication degration down the copying chain. Sure Blu-ray will look better, but generally not to the degree that a newer movie would.

This one of the reasons I am hisistant on this set. Plus, it is missing a ton of the movies from the Legacy Collections like Return of the Creature, Son of Frankenstein, House of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, House of Dracula, The Mummy's Hand, etc.

[bruceames]

This one of the reasons I am hisistant on this set. Plus, it is missing a ton of the movies from the Legacy Collections like Return of the Creature, Son of Frankenstein, House of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, House of Dracula, The Mummy's Hand, etc.

Right. Knowing there's a good chance the Legacy Collections will come out in a few years certainly adds to the hesitation. I paid about the same price for both sets, and would rather own the one with three times as many movies (although the latter is missing Phantom of the Opera). Besides, I'm in no rush, as by coincidence I was revisiting my monster sets as this was announced, so my appetite won't be whet for a few more years anyway. And if the Legacy Collections (or whatever they call them) don't get released before I want to see them again, then hopefully this set will see a few years of price depreciation and I can get it fairly cheap.

[MrAngles]

As for film grain, BLu-ray actually accentuates it, rather than diminish, its "intrusion". Most people I know don't like film grain, and my wife thought the DVD version of The Third Man looks better than the BLu-ray for this very reason. I'm the exception however, and I do prefer the trade off of having more grain in order to have more fine detail.

When Blu-ray masters are done right they use less DNR than DVD masters because the higher resolution and more efficient/higher bitrate encoding resolves film grain better, letting it actually look like film grain, instead of like ugly digital noise on DVD. The Blu-rays I appreciate the most aren't the brand new clean transfers, they are the older ones that never looked good on DVD to begin with either due to loss of detail due to DNR or too much noise in the picture. The movie Reign of Fire is a good example of a more recent one that is nearly unwatchable on DVD due to all the smoke, but looks comparably great on Blu-ray, and totally worth rebuying to me. It all depends on how the transfer is handled, but movies like these have the most potential for improvement, regardless of what aspect ratio they are in.

That said, if you don't watch a movie to begin with due to not being interested in the content, rebuying it due to image quality would be stupid and a waste of money. I just think throwing out a whole group of movies based on being black and white and 4:3 as being a waste of money for everyone is very short-sighted.

[Dr Kain]

Right. Knowing there's a good chance the Legacy Collections will come out in a few years certainly adds to the hesitation. I paid about the same price for both sets, and would rather own the one with three times as many movies (although the latter is missing Phantom of the Opera). Besides, I'm in no rush, as by coincidence I was revisiting my monster sets as this was announced, so my appetite won't be whet for a few more years anyway. And if the Legacy Collections (or whatever they call them) don't get released before I want to see them again, then hopefully this set will see a few years of price depreciation and I can get it fairly cheap.

That's odd, the first paragraph of my reply disappeared.

Anyway, to add to what you were talking about before about the film quality, that is another factor for me. I mean, the Legacy Collections look probably about as good as the movies can ever look unless Univeral goes ahead with a full restoration of every movie, and I just don't see them finding it worth the cost to do so. Now if they do fully restore them, I probably will buy this set, because if they do restore them, I just cannot see them putting the money into restoring the rest of the movies from the Legacy Collections outside of House of Frankenstein and maybe Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman. The rest of the sequels are not that well remembered by people, and it never seemed like Universal was all that interested in releasing them, as I think the LC is the only time Ghost of Frankenstein was ever released on DVD. I cannot blame Universal for it, but I wish they would.

[bruceames]

That said, if you don't watch a movie to begin with due to not being interested in the content, rebuying it due to image quality would be stupid and a waste of money. I just think throwing out a whole group of movies based on being black and white and 4:3 as being a waste of money for everyone is very short-sighted.

Horror is my least favorite genre, but I am definitely interested in the classics, regardless of genre. I have also purchased many films in 4:3 B&W, so I don't how you came up with the conclusion that I think they are a waste of money. This particular collection I bought pretty much as a blind buy.

I have noticed a trend among these movies, with Universal releasing a latest and greatest version every few years.

[MrAngles]

Horror is my least favorite genre, but I am definitely interested in the classics, regardless of genre. I have also purchased many films in 4:3 B&W, so I don't how you came up with the conclusion that I think they are a waste of money. This particular collection I bought pretty much as a blind buy.

I have noticed a trend among these movies, with Universal releasing a latest and greatest version every few years.

Just this:

But as it is I've spent plenty on the monster movies.

And I would have to agree with Zetmoon about his points on not rebuying many of his DVDs, particularly the older, B&W ones in 1.33 aspect ratio.

[Inspector Tanzi]

Some of the Black & White Blu Ray discs I have look just as good, if not better than some of the colour films.

[bruceames]

Just this:

Ok, so? That's doesn't mean I think they're waste of money. Especially if you don't own them already twice over. I would love to own them on Blu-ray, but knowing they keep upgrading these every 3-4 years makes me rather hesitant.

And my opinion is still that of Zetmoon: as a general rule, the upgrade of b&w movies to HD is not appreciated as much as that of an upgrade to color. There are many exceptions of course, but I'm not sure these movies will be among them, due to the limitations of the surviving prints.

[MrAngles]

Ok, so? That's doesn't mean I think they're waste of money. Especially if you don't own them already twice over. I would love to own them on Blu-ray, but knowing they keep upgrading these every 3-4 years makes me rather hesitant.

And my opinion is still that of Zetmoon: as a general rule, the upgrade of b&w movies to HD is not appreciated as much as that of an upgrade to color. There are many exceptions of course, but I'm not sure these movies will be among them, due to the limitations of the surviving prints.

Hey I'm not trying to argue with you, when I consider rebuying movies I already own and don't watch very often, I think of it as a waste of money. It sounds like you call it something different, no need to argue about semantics.

Anyway there is a ton of appreciable difference between Blu-ray and DVD for black and white films, regardless of what aspect ratio they're in. That doesn't mean they're worth buying for everyone, but I don't see how color and aspect ratio would be a legitimate deciding factor. If the transfers end up looking bad that's one thing, but the aspect ratio has nothing to do with it.

[Landy]

The Classic Monster Collection is actually the first DVD I ever bought. I picked it up at Costco for $140 + tax along with my first DVD player. The funny thing is that I only watched about 4 of them. I've also bought all six titles of Legacy Collection (or Legacy Series, it the one the has the sequels). I appreciate classic movie but the horror genre is my least favorite. If it was something I really loved and has reply value then I would likely rebuy it on Blu-ray. But as it is I've spent plenty on the monster movies.

This might be a dumb question, but if the horror genre is your least favorite, why would your first DVD purchase be from the horror genre?

[bruceames]

This might be a dumb question, but if the horror genre is your least favorite, why would your first DVD purchase be from the horror genre?

Because its my wife's favorite genre.

[bruceames]

Hey I'm not trying to argue with you, when I consider rebuying movies I already own and don't watch very often, I think of it as a waste of money. It sounds like you call it something different, no need to argue about semantics.

Anyway there is a ton of appreciable difference between Blu-ray and DVD for black and white films, regardless of what aspect ratio they're in. That doesn't mean they're worth buying for everyone, but I don't see how color and aspect ratio would be a legitimate deciding factor. If the transfers end up looking bad that's one thing, but the aspect ratio has nothing to do with it.

A big factor for me in deciding whether to rebuy something on Blu-ray that I already have on DVD, is how much of a visual upgrade it will be. Over time I have noticed that the difference (upscaled DVD vs. Blu-ray) between B&W films is not as apparent as those in color. This is particularly true with movies that have a poor master to start with.

Yesterday I started to watch The Seven Samarai and the difference between it and the DVD is rather subtle. I went back and forth and in some scenes I could barely tell a difference. I watched Citizen Kane a few days ago as well and the difference is very appreciable there, but only after I stuck to the DVD in to compare what I was missing. Otherwise I would have been fine watching the DVD. But of course the Blu-ray is much better and I enjoyed it very much.

Movies in color have that additional "dimension" (for lack of a better term) so there's just more to improve upon I guess so I tend to notice the difference right away. I put in The Godfather DVD yesterday and it looks like crap compared to the color movies I have been watching in 1080p. Maybe there's also a psychological thing, but I tend to be more forgiving of older movies in B&W and in 1:33 to 1 aspect ratio. It's like the older ones have shitty audio anyway (by comparison) so it doesn't bother me much that the video is sub par as well. But a movie like Star Wars or The Godfather it would be a big problem (because I'm used to HD and watch it on my 58" plasma from 6 feet away).

So that's the important thing to me, how I perceive the difference and I'm much more likely to replace newer movies in color than old ones in B&W.