Why the bother? Remastering it only to have it released on standard DVD is a waste on time..., and one's money. Having seen an original Technicolor print of Rear Window, I'd want something nearly approximating the lusciousness of Technicolor. 'Nuf said.
Well the set's been out for a while, maybe that's why it's going on sale...? Well anyway, DVD is still awesome, I'm not sure how much more they could pump out of the prints they got of the movies. I'd be surprised (pleasantly mind you) if a Blu-ray edition of Hitchcock's movies looked a GREAT deal better than the DVD's.
There are many, many of us out here who don't have a Blu-Ray player and don't plan on getting one...a few extra pixels is not going to make or break my life. It's a movie, not the second coming. So any new release to standard DVD is indeed NOT a waste of time for many of us, irrespective of your elitist comment.
I watched these DVDs on my HD DVD player which upscales beautifully. I don't know how well Blu-Ray handles upscaling but if it's anywhere as good as my player, I don't think you need to wait for a 1080p presentation. Right now, they look just great and besides if they ever do get the 1080 treatment they'll probably go for twice the price at least.
Twenty months later, and I'm curious whether you have already bought the Blu-ray player or are considering to buy one.
Blu-ray definitiely offers more qualities than just 'a few extra pixels', as anyone who isn't blind (yourself included) will admit after having compared a high quality Blu-ray movie to its high-quality DVD companion.
Besides, prices of Blu-ray discs and players are decreasing faster than the price of US homes and properties :-)
I agree Leo. I don't know how much more you're going to squeeze out of movies this old and I highly doubt it will be worth the price of the BD release. You can't change the source but a lot of people seem to think BD is a miracle drug for all movies.
@Michael...I have a Samsung 750 series LCD and while I can see the difference, I really don't think it blows me away. However, I was amazed at the audio, which is unsurpassed. BD is a considerable investment to get started so it doesn't surprise me that people may not have it even now and especially in this economy. I also know quite a few people who really don't care one way or the other...I wish I was that content. :)
If you want to check out the difference in image quality between a DVD version and a Blu-ray version of a particular movie, I recommend www.dvdbeaver.com. In the 'comparisons' section you will find screenshots and informative comments.
That's a bad analogy. Blu Ray and DVDs are practically the same thing when you compare DVDs to VHS. And the elitist is not the mass majority. The mass majority..I'd say ALL of Americans, have DVD players now. Get informed, please.
It always boggles my mind when people mention that they don't think "old movies" will benefit that much from blu-ray. Old movies, in general, have more resolution than modern films. There are several reasons for this. One is that most older films were made in studios and they had plenty of light sources and were able to use high-resolution, low-speed film stocks that contain more resolution than high-speed film stocks used on modern films that often have to shoot in low light. Another reason is that old movies used static cameras more, and with static cameras you could get better focus and less jitter, ergo more resolution. Another reason is that the major studios spent a small fortune having the absolute best camera technology and the best crew to operate it possible, while today the proliferation of digital technology and lower resolution film cameras made it easier for anyone to pick up a camera and shoot a film. An "old film" like 2001:A Space Odyssey will look better than any modern film, and it's 70mm film stock is probably somewhere around 40+ megapixels per-frame while modern home theater technology is only capable of 2 megapixels. Hitch's films were, generally, much the same, especially for those shot in 70mm or in technicolor.
>>> Even old movies can look great on blu ray. <<< Even old TV can look great on blu ray! Check out Star Trek: The Original Series for instance (it's also available for free via Amazon Instant Video if you are a Prime member) Anything that was shot on 32mm film will look better on blu ray provided it's adequately restored and transferred. Upscaling is great, but it will not restore detail that has been eliminated! It will just make a relatively coarse picture smoother.
People who believe that the image quality of Blu-Ray is only a small, hardly noticeable improvement over DVD are advised to compare the following images. The first two screenshots are from the 'North by Northwest' DVD vs. Blu-Ray, the second from 'Psycho'. I find the difference striking. At least, if watched on a proper 1920x1080 hi-definition tv or computer screen.
Prices of Blu-Ray discs and players are decreasing rapidly. The 50th anniversary Blu-Ray of 'Psycho' can be bought for less than 15 dollars. 'North by Northwest' can be had For a Few Dollars More. My good Philips Blu-Ray and DVD player cost less than 120 dollars. Definitely worth the purchase for a film lover/collector. I cherish my 2000+ DVD collection, but will probably replace the 100+ movies that I want to own in the best quality possible. Hitch's work definitely among them.
Again, I recommend the website www.dvdbeaver.com for a vast amount of information - and image comparisons - of DVD and Blu-Ray editions.
Michel - those who believe there is a slight difference need glasses and a new TV. Trust me, with a 67" LED, I can show you a demonstrable difference. Besides, most DVDs look WAAAAY better when played through a higher quality Blu-ray player.
Good News, everybody: Universal announced that they will make a blu ray version of this box set, including North by Northwest, this Fall: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/21/alfred-hitchcock-the-masterpiece-collection-coming-to-blu-ray