Kane on Blu-ray

[Kane76]

From Hi-Def Digest:

George Feltenstein of Warner Home Video talks about future releases and why it takes so long to bring Golden Age gems to Blu-ray

'Citizen Kane' will celebrate its 70th anniversary with a Blu-ray bow in 2011."

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/ ... !_(UPDATED)/2502

[atcolomb]

...any news on Warners' release of Ambersons?.....

[purplepines]

Universal's handling that, no? If so, why does Warners have Kane but not Ambersons?

[atcolomb]

Universal's handling that, no? If so, why does Warners have Kane but not Ambersons?

I thought Warner Bros. has the rights to all the RKO films??.....

[Glenn Anders]

Warner Brothers does have Ambersons. Sorta like the case of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, in another context, they claimed to be putting it out in 2008. Now, they have it listed . . . definitely for 2009.

We'll see.

Glenn

[atcolomb]

Warner Brothers does have Ambersons. Sorta like the case of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, in another context, they claimed to be putting it out in 2008. Now, they have it listed . . . definitely for 2009.

We'll see.

Glenn

Speaking of Ambersons..over the weekend i did finish watching The RKO story on dvd. Great stuff about the studio and in episode 4 they spent a whole hour on Welles. They talked about RKO geting him and the making of Kane, the shooting of Ambersons and his trip to South America, and his downfall with Ambersons being cut and being kicked out of RKO. Lots of footage of him with in South America, stills from Ambersons, and interviews with the people that were there.

[edmoney]

Warner Brothers does have Ambersons. Sorta like the case of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, in another context, they claimed to be putting it out in 2008. Now, they have it listed . . . definitely for 2009.

We'll see.

Glenn

When/where did they "definitely" list Ambersons for 2009??

[Glenn Anders]

Hi, edmoney: I've just been proudly and defiantly saying that I deal with facts, and admit when I am wrong, so I better consider my statement here.

My information comes from a document, entitled Upcoming Classic Films on DVD, which was posted as an addendum to one of the Internet DVD columns before Thanksgiving of last year, and was updated formally for "December 21st, 2008." The document has been casually updated, in part, by highlight since then. As you will remember, Warner Brothers promised THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and JOURNEY INTO FEAR (perhaps as a package) for 2008. This document originally changed the proposed release of these DVD's separately, first for JOURNEY INTO FEAR, then for THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, to "TBD." The update then amended both releases to 2009, and because all the other changes have come to pass, I tend to believe in them.

Unfortunately, I only saved that part I wanted of the entire entry (which included reviews and discussion), and because my URL for the copy has accreted a long pile of numbers and letters which google won't stand for, and no title for the original column, I can't give you a citation.

So we better throw in another grain of salt to my original wording, and call this "lore," unless they update it again. I'll keep my eye on it for you.

Glenn

[Kane76]

Glenn,

I think many of us are on the watch for Ambersons on DVD, not to mention Journey Into Fear. So we got your back when that announcement is made, we'll all know about it.

[Joshua]

I'm not certain of the visual advantages of blu-ray since I don't own a player, I'm assuming big budget, special effects laden films will look a little better, but is there really any real advantage to having a film like Kane on blu-ray?

[Glenn Anders]

It puzzles me, too, Joshua -- the advantages of Blue-ray, I mean. The promoters claim unrivaled, clean transfers, but isn't that what HD claimed, too? It may come down to this: Blue-ray promises a three dimensional , deep focus picture, and I understand that all movies, classic and modern, will have their sound elements re-recorded in the finest surround-a-sound possible. The latter might be an advantage.

But someone has remembered here recently the debacle of OTHELLO when its sound stage was screwed around with.

As I always say, we'll have to see -- and hear!

Regards.

Glenn

[purplepines]

Are old films on Blu-Ray worth it? After seeing all the screen shots on DVDBeaver.com, I would have to say definitely.

And the bigger the TV's get, the worse your normal DVDs can look. So if you're on the fence about whether it looks better (and there are more than a few "classic" films on Blu-Ray), I'd say it is a no-brainer. My player cost $300, plus the $100 HDMI cable which contains BOTH digital audio and video.

Check out the screenshots for every Blu-Ray currently available here:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/new-format.htm

[The Night Man]

I'm not certain of the visual advantages of blu-ray since I don't own a player... but is there really any real advantage to having a film like Kane on blu-ray?

There's much more information per frame of film than can be squeezed onto a standard DVD (along with various audio tracks & extras). Standard DVDs simply can't reproduce all the nuances of film (old or new) because they don't have the room for it. Blu-ray discs have greater capacity and so can accomodate more detailed transfers, meaning better picture quality for all films, Kane included.

[Jarpie]

Old movies can look much better in blu-ray than in the DVD, just look at the Casablanca and The Criterion Collection's wonderful release of The Third Man.

[Terry]

Having recently upgraded to an entry level HD set (32" 16:9 720p LCD) and HD cable TV, I'm afraid there is a vast difference. HD movies look superb, though seeing every pore on an actor's face can be a bit distracting for me at this stage (and unflattering for the actors and TV personalities - I could count every freckle on Obama's cheeks during his speech a few nights ago.)

DVDs still look very nice on an HD set, especially those in anamorphic widescreen and using component cables, but they appear softer than an HD presentation does. I was quite stunned by the level of detail on The Andromeda Strain, for example. I'm not looking forward to repurchasing my film library, but fortunately not much of it is available in HD yet.

The HD movies I've been watching On Demand from Comcast are all formatted for the 16:9 dimension (1.78:1,) meaning the left and right edges of an image wider than that (say Cinemascope) have been cropped off. Is that a standard Blu-ray practice, or are they available in letterbox as well? Though what I've seen also worked extremely well cropped for that ratio - I didn't notice any compositions that were noticeably impaired.

Also, while switching between CBS standard and CBS HD one evening, I noticed that the standard showed a closeup of an actor while the HD showed a two-shot of that actor and another. Will these multiple formats cease in June with the complete digital conversion, or will simultaneous Standard Fullscreen and 16:9 HD Fullscreen continue after that?

And as for 1.33:1 films like Kane and Third Man, you'll have to live with black bars on the sides of the screen, stretch the image to the sides of the screen (thus making everyone look stout,) or zoom in on the image (thus matching the sides of the image to your screen, but cropping the top and bottom of the image.) Actually, some old TV shows (like the original Battlestar Galactica) look quite good (to me at least) so zoomed and cropped. Who knew watching TV would get so complicated. No wonder I still listen to shortwave radio (which itself is exceedingly complicated - perhaps I'll purchase a pet rock, or adopt a free-ranging wild one from the back yard, and call it quits.)