Universal Classic Monsters: Complete 30-Film Collection Blu-Ray Set Coming August 28

I already have the Universal Classic Monsters Essential collection from a few years ago but I'm going to have to spring for this. I'm sure there's a fair amount of dross but I don't think I can resist:

https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Cl...8&qid=1531846307&sr=8-1&keywords=191329065549

 

Ain't no monster like a universal monster-I might spring for this one too!

 

I have the DVD version of this set. They are releasing the individual blu sets now and I guess will be collected into one big set just like the DVDs. Keep in mind, this is simply a box of the individual sets, so there is duplication of the crossover titles...

 

Oh my. Me want.

Unfortunately, I just found out that I've been caught in a workforce reduction (really? what company is reducing Systems Analysts in 2018?) as of August 31. I bet that by the time I get back on my feet this is OOP and copies have shot up to 3 times this price.

 

I have the DVD 30 Film Collection and the Blu-ray 8 film box shown above. I'm fine, I'm not purchasing these again. DVD is fine for most of these movies.

 

I have never bought the kool aid of Black and White movies on Blu-Ray. I think thats just a money grab. If its well mastered, DVD is more than enough for a B&W film.

 

Actually, a restored B&W negative can yield as much as 2K of information. But not much more than that. I would draw the line at 4K for sure -- I think that's silly. So much hinges on the quality of the mastering, that really has the biggest effect on picture quality -- not the K, per se.

 

Hey, $150 for the whole set is cheap: $5 per film.

 

It's even cheaper at Bull Moose!

Universal Classic Monsters

At this price, I'm willing to take the plunge even though I already have the 8-movie set. Maybe I can sell that on to recoup a little bit of the cost.

 

Well Marc, see, thats what I'm saying. I'm saying that a well mastered DVD of a B&W title might not have the same amount of "information" that a 2k Blu-Ray has, but on a B&W title I'm just convinced it doesnt matter.
Its still B&W, which is the overwhelming factor.

 

You are mistaken, and I have mastered films for a living for 39 years (40 if I live to next summer). I say it does matter, and you can really see the difference in an A/B comparison.

It would be very easy to take two players -- a DVD player playing a DVD, and an HD player playing the same title on Blu-ray -- and then just compare the two on an HD set. One issue is that you'll generally see much better mastering in the Blu-ray for the simple reason that it was done relatively recently, but either way, it's going to be better and sharper. Do you actually own a Blu-ray player? Do you own a current well-adjusted HD or 4K TV set? Have you tried doing this?

I'm often quick to say that there generally isn't 4K resolution in these old films (at least prior to about 1985), but they might get close to 2K if the scans were done from the original nitrate negatives or extremely good finegrain positives. As one example: look at the Citizen Kane Blu-ray released several years ago from WB, which is a knock-out. I'm convinced the film didn't look this good back in 1941.

 

Dude even the most basic capsaholic grab will put that idea down to the ground.

Dracula • DE Blu-ray vs. US The Legacy Collection DVD

I admit fully that the universal movies have not been treated well, but that doesn't mean that high resolution scans of 35 mm prints and 35 mm negatives don't yield great results....see next post. This idea about B&W having anything to do with the scan of chemical molecules is just complete and utter misstatement of facts...respectfully.

Please google how small of detail we are talking here in regards to the silver halide particles and the film frame.

It most certainly is not "Kool-aid" to want that detail like with Dracula where they have the original nitrate positive (first generation off the negative).

If one is in a job 100 years that doesn't change the fact that one is wrong in regards to resolution approximations.

And every time you have said it, you are flat out wrong. While I have been over the size of silver halide particles being measured in ANGSTROMS ad nauseum, the part I have an issue with is someone that keeps repeating the flawed information of assigning a "pixel" as if they are the same.

A flat scan by definition misses information and thus even makes this approximation more silly.

When you state remarks that a digital scan surpasses a chemical process straight from the negative (like Citizen Kane), I just find that confusing and it simply makes no sense. I understand being a technician means that you promote the latest and greatest and it is marketing to push the agenda to sell more digitial copies, but it doesn't make the wrong headed information more true.

You need to open a chemistry book PLEASE!

 

LOL....of course I own a Blu-Ray player (oppo) and yes, I have compared recently mastered B&W titles on DVD to their BR counterparts.

I just didnt see much of a difference in B&W , whereas in color, I always saw a tangible difference.

In grayscale, I question "just how good its going to get".

But, as I always say, To Each His Own.

Rock on!

 

What does clarity/detail have to do with color or not?

 

What does clarity/detail have to do with color or not?

You really need to ask?

An object in Color, when presented in more detail, will be MUCH more easily discerned than the same object in Black and White.

Real World example:

A man in a movie is wearing a tie with multiple patterns on it, with each "pattern" a different color. (doesnt have to be a tie, could be any article of clothing).

In Color, the Blu-Ray print will allow to to really see the difference between the patterns, and how they were woven.

In B&W, however, the patterns will recede into the backround. The gray scales just arent "different" enough from each other to pop out as they do in color.
The mere fact that the first one was Color provides the fuel for the resolution of Hi Res to manifest.

Now, I fully understand that some folks feel that to see even a tiny bit more Res in B&W is "worth" the added cost of buying the Blu-Ray version of a B&W film. Thats cool. It just isnt for me, and thats all I'm saying.

 

I too bought the 8 film UK set in 2012. Pre ordered was $43. by today's conversion rate. Still very happy with it.
In 2016, I added the restored Frankenstein Legacy box set.
I'm set.
Still remember the thrill of buying the VHS set on Halloween night, 1991.
Exactly why I have loved home video since 1979, because for my age and past, I'll never take it for granted.

Oh, and I built all the monster model kits in the late 60s / early 70s too.

Universal rules.

 

And that's how you post a nice, non-confrontational opinion. I am one of those as you say. The first close up of Karloff's monster made me gasp. I had never seen so much detail before. Not from the WGN broadcasts in the early 70s, not from the VHS tapes, not even from the DVDs, but the Blu ray...oh yeah.

 

Again, we are having misscommunciation on the basics.

It starts with the building block of the image which is the silver particles...it isn't a "tiny" amount of information. Whether organic dyes are used or not, it starts with that which is what gives us images to look at.

This talk about B&W having any hindering to the picture is just a sheer disconnect with what is going on. I most assuredly agree that you have a preference based on your color comfort level, but it ain't going to make water turn into wine either.

I am afraid you are not even trying to seek the truth and that is fine, believe what you want, but the facts don't support it one bit.

Did you even look at the screenshot? I have heard this tomfoolery about black and white not having worth in regard to resolution the same as I have been seeing Vidiot talk about prints pre 1985 not having anything past 2K....and all I can think, is someone even trying to get the facts right?

An angstrom is .000007 mm (which is what silver is measured in because the particles are so small). A 35 mm film cell is 864 mm area. And you think a DVD that has around 42000 pixels is going to cut it???

Look I ain't trying to be mean here, but I am telling you, do the research or look at the screen shots or just follow what I just said.

"Confrontational" because one uses their opinion over facts?

My "confrontation" was aimed more at Vidiot who isn't even trying to get it right.

 

Look I am going to close this by saying, that the proof is in the pudding. If one prefers that utter piece of garbage that is the Draucla DVD Legacy edition..have at it. But the restoration of this classic is jaw dropping along with the rest (well there are some ghosting convergence 3D issues with Creature from the Black Lagoon..but that is another story).

 

@bubba-ho-tep , thought you'd appreciate this, made me bust out laughing.

 

The coffin blu ray box was pretty good, also included booklet/cards.

 

Hey Myke, thats cool. I'm Glad youre enjoying it.

 

Hey guys I really do apologize if I came off offensive. I really don't want to be pushed out of a discussion because of my rudeness.

So again I am sorry. I really enjoy these movies and would rather discuss that aspect instead of derailing it into tech talk that has nothing to do with OP original intent. To start that is very inconsiderate and not productive.

For the record I enjoy Dracula so much that I cannot stop talking about how good of a job they did on it.

 

I rest my case.